Blob attacks Trump: Viper nest of neocons in State Department fuels Ukrainegate
Due to the dominance of neocons in the State Department the use of force became not a last resort but the default option
in the USA foreign policy, which impoverish nation, enrich MIC and engager the the USA as a country.
All State department critters who testified in Ukrainegate hearings used
very dishonest terminology, as well as content. All of the them
subscribed to the "Full spectrum Dominance" doctrine" and as such can be classified as neocons. Add to this sad list Fiona Hill and Alexander Vindman testomonies
and you see a gallery of slick self-dealers. Their well being,
as typical neocons, clearly depends of threat inflation. Some of those testimonies were vomit-inducing (Fiona
Hill). I'll bet they all still have well-paid employment and
continue to spread their warmongering crap without any accountability.
It is clear than ever that the problem of American intervention
in Ukraine is the result of dominance of neocons in the USA foreign policy. The United States has slowly slid away from any plausible claim of standing for peace in the world.
The ideal of peace was one that America long promoted, enshrining it in law and institutions, and the end of the Cold War offered
an unparalleled opportunity to advance the cause. But US elite as represented by leaders of both parties chose another path --
the path of unhinged militarism. Wars has come to seem inevitable and eternal, in practice
and even desirable. This cannibalization of the USA elite is an interesting phenomena, which suggest that the existence of
the USSR was the major positive factor for the USA, as it prevented the USA elite from becoming crazy, unhinged warmongers and
forced it to care more about the USA population, implicitly limiting military spedings.
When the USA assumed the global leadership after World War II, it felt compelled to establish the United Nations to halt the
"scourge of war," as
the U.N. Charter says right at the
start. At America's urging, the organization outlawed the use of force, except where authorized by its Security Council or used in
self-defense. Since 1990th the USA violated the US charter with impunity multiple times.
Many expected that the legal constraints on the USA warmongering -- including international obligations, domestic statutes and
constitutional duties -- ought to have returned to the fore after the Cold War, when the rationale for America's vast mobilization
in the second half of the 20th century seized to exist. And even this rational in a form of the existence of the USSR was
by-and-large bogus -- while it adhered to a hostile Marxist ideology, which it tried without much success to expand to other
countries, while its own economy crumbled, the USSR did not represent any security threat to the USA.
After the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy establishment adopted the "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine. And it is
still in place today despite disastrous results. Bill Clinton and the next two presidents, subscribed to the liberal
internationalist and neoconservative creeds that embraced armed force. They all treated international law cavalierly,
essentially abandoning any pretence of the following international norms and treaties. The neocons in State Department
blatantly violated existing treaties when it suit them pursuing aggressive and, in retrospect, stupid, damaging for the USA and
extremely costly for US taxpayers foreign policy. The use of force became not a last resort; but the first resort (The
infinity war - The Washington Post)
Once such arguments gained currency, their authors lost control of them. Conservative hawks found that a law-optional approach
suited their agenda as well, and their liberal counterparts, if they disagreed at all, did so mostly as a matter of tactics, not
principle. George W. Bush benefited from this permissive context when he launched the Iraq War, whose
illegality was
flagrant and catalytic, since it was unauthorized by the United Nations and
relied on the administration's dangerous claim that "anticipatory
self-defense" justifies invasion. The world took notice. Russia, in particular, seized on the new U.S. position as a
spectacular excuse to make incursions of its own in
Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014.
Obama won election in part because he ran against the Iraq War. In office, however, he cemented more than reversed America's disregard
of international constraints on warmaking. While failing to end the war in Afghanistan, his administration
exceeded the Security Council's authorization
by working to overthrow Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, converting a permission slip to avert atrocity into a blank check for regime
change. Then, to punish the Islamic State, Obama bombed Syria on a contrived
rationale
-- one that allowed attacks against nations unwilling or unable to control terrorists on their territory. When he nearly struck
again in response to Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, Obama
laid the legal
foundation for Trump to strike the Syrian government, again without a U.N. sign-off. Once highly valued, then defied only with
controversy, international law now scarcely figures in U.S. decisions of war and peace.
Like international law, U.S. domestic law enshrines an expectation of peace, setting a high bar for the resort to war. If war
is to be waged, the Constitution requires Congress to declare it -- a purposeful grant of authority to the branch of government that
best reflects the diverse interests of the people and therefore should be harder to rouse to conflict than one commander in chief.
Yet the nation has drifted from that tradition, too. After defaulting on its constitutional obligation during the Cold War (partly
on the grounds that the speed of a potential nuclear strike required a president who could respond quickly), Congress declined to
reassert its authority after the Soviet threat passed.
In the 1990s, Congress might at least have kept faith with the WPR, which it passed in 1973 to rein in future presidents. The
resolution calls for Congress to authorize "hostilities" within 60 days of their start; otherwise U.S. forces must withdraw. Throughout
the 1980s and 1990s, members of the House of Representatives
brought presidents to
court for taking military action in violation
of the statute -- in El Salvador
, the Persian Gulf War and
Kosovo , for example. But advocates of the strategy
all but gave up, and Congress itself increasingly deferred to presidential wars in the age of terrorism. By the time Obama intervened
in Libya, the WPR lay in tatters. In a final indignity during the Libya operation, one administration lawyer
explained that "hostilities" was an "
ambiguous term of art
" that might exclude aerial bombardment, so Congress did not need to approve a war that toppled a regime.
Disasters such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Yemen followed. Trillions of dollars were wasted.
The coup d'état in Ukraine (called by Washington propagandists "The Revolution of Dignity") was a part of
Brzezinski's Gran Chessboard plan -- the attempt to encircle
Russia with NATO. The US can now threaten Russia from Ukraine, Poland, Rumania, Baltic State and Georgia. And most of the dying in
unleashed by the USA (or, at least, with the USA encouragement, as Provisional Government was drank with their victory after the
coupe and was incline to reckless actions) Western Ukrainian far right nationalists who came to power in 2014 are the USA
puppet; Poroshenko was probably the USA agent in the past. But they profess such a level of Russophobia that the current
neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA looks pretty mild in comparison. In any case the ciovil war was unleashed by them. And tens of
thousand civilians were killed. Specifically Donetsk and Lugansk area civilians. So who cares. "Let it Bleed"
The USA now keep permanent presence of military advisors/trainer force in Ukraine and supplied the country with
sophisticated weapons such as Javelins (which might be resold to people whom the USA fight in other war theaters). Presence of
foreign military force is usually called occupation. Such a presence formally is called occupation of the country. What The USA get
as a blowback is unclear. The only thing which is clear that that will be a blowback, and probably no less strong then in case
of Afghan war. Russians are clearly incensed by February 2014 coup and only presence of Putin at the helm prevented full
stale occupation of Eastern Ukraine and possible nuclear hit on the USA. And it created a real flashing point with Russia.
It seems that when it comes to our policy in Ukraine and pretty much
the rest of the world it looks like "Groundhog Day" every day. I would suggest we send all those neocons to the frontline, but this
of course is a wishful thinking. Trump actually gave a
green light for the war party. Do they think Putin is going to blink, or he will keep his finger on the button and say: "I dare
you".
In any case Ukraine became a part of the bigger game of provoking
Russia (continuing the foreign policy adopted by previous three administrations - Clinton, Bush II and Obama) . Why they are
doing that, especially those who have children is completely unclear to me.
The Foreign Policy Blob Versus Trump: are the attacks on Trump's Ukraine conduct causing real damage?
by Hunter DeRensis
October 30, 2019
Ever since the whistleblower complaint from inside the CIA first surfaced against President Donald Trump, a steady stream of
national security and State Department officials have testified about their consternation at his dealings with Ukraine. The dominant
impression that they have left, however, is that they are blurring the line between what constitutes unsavory behavior when it comes
to pressuring Ukraine for information on domestic political opponents, on the one hand, and what are legitimate policy
disagreements. Indeed, it appears that they are, more often than not, substituting their own political judgments for the president’s
when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy—something that should concern Democrats as much as Republicans. A whole
caste of government officials seems to believe that for an American president to aim to improve relations with Russia is an
illegitimate, even treasonous, aspiration.
Today was no exception. Consider the testimony of State Department official Catherine Croft. In her brief opening statement, she
declared, “As the Director covering Ukraine, I staffed the President's December 2017 decision to provide Ukraine with Javelin
anti-tank missile systems. I also staffed his September 2017 meeting with then-President Petro Poroshenko on the margins of the UN
General Assembly. Throughout both, I heard—directly and indirectly—President Trump describe Ukraine as a corrupt country.” The
implication was that Trump had no business complaining about corruption in Ukraine. But why not? The persistence of corruption,
which President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected by an overwhelming majority to combat, is hardly a secret.
Perhaps even more revealing was Croft’s declaration to the House Intelligence Committee that in November 2018 the White House
refused to approve the release of a statement condemning Russia for seizing three Ukrainian ships located close to Crimea. It sounds
damning at first glance. But once again, why shouldn’t Trump have practiced restraint in this instance if he was intent on improving
relations with Russia, a platform that he was elected on? As it happens, the Zelensky campaign depicted the ship incident as a
political provocation on the part of the Poroshenko government.
The implicit assumptions that appear to guide these veteran members of the bureaucracy were even more obvious in the case of Lt.
Col. Alexander S. Vindman. As the media has underscored, he is the first person to testify in the impeachment inquiry who
participated in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Initially, Trump’s
defenders sought to portray him as guilty of “espionage” or dual loyalty because he emigrated to America as a toddler. But this was
always preposterous. More telling is that Vindman, no less than Croft, epitomizes a mindset that seems to regard a deviation from
the strictures of the foreign policy establishment as by definition unacceptable.
In his opening statement, Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a “frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.” He added,
“the U.S. government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms will
lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic
prosperity.” But what if Trump has a different view of matters than the “U.S. government policy community’s view”? After all, Trump
was elected in part on his explicit declarations that he would not rely on the experts who had plunged America into Iraq and Libya.
Consider as well the attention that Vindman has lavished upon Trump’s phone call with Zelensky. According to Vindman, portions of
the call he considered important were not included in the document kept by the government that was released to the last month. This
includes President Trump claiming there are recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing Ukrainian corruption, and
President Zelensky specifically referring to Biden’s son’s company, Burisma Holdings. The document released by the administration
includes Zelensky talking about “the company” and Trump saying, “Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution,” which
is an interpretation of a video of Joe Biden describing how the Obama administration made firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor
Shokin a prerequisite for receiving foreign aid. Vindman’s recollection of the call does not change the substance of what was
already understood. However, the changes in language are being portrayed as more analogous to Richard Nixon editing the White House
tapes than the routine process that produced a routine document. “Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump’s July
phone call with Ukraine’s president and was alarmed, testified that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript,”
blared the New York Times headline.
For two months, major media outlets have described the document as a “transcript,” as a shorthand term. But as the document, and
TNI’s previous reporting makes clear, it is not a transcript in the strict sense of the term. “This is what’s known as a memorandum
of conversation: MEMCON. It is a standard tool that is used throughout the government and the procedures can vary from agency to
agency, or who your boss is. But generally, they’re all done about the same way,” explains Peter Van Buren, a former Foreign Service
Officer in the State Department.
“In my own experience in government for 24 years it’s a pretty standardized practice. The idea is, for all sorts of reasons, most
interactions are not recorded. Instead, they’re memorialized through this process of MEMCON. Typically, while there are many people
who may be listening in or present at a meeting, someone (or sometimes two people) are designated as official notetakers and they
take down the conversation. And they’re not trying necessarily to get an exact word-for-word account, but they’re certainly trying
to get an idea for idea. And in many cases when you’re dealing at the White House level, they are getting it pretty much word for
word,” Van Buren tells TNI.
As a participant on the phone call, Vindman would have been one of the early editors. As the process continued, officials higher
than him made changes, just like the editor of a magazine would for a writer. The precise reasons for the changes are open-ended and
probably unknowable. There exists no evidence that the changes were nefarious or anything other than mundane word choice. The
document released to the public is the official U.S. government record of what happened.
John Marshall Evans, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Ambassador to Armenia, narrows down what should be the focus of this
inquiry—and what it’s actually becoming. “The issue is indeed not one of policy, which the President can change, but of the purpose
that was pursued in the July 25th call: whether it was in the national interest or a private gain,” he says. So far, no one has
shown that Trump demanded that the Ukrainian government produce a specific result or fabricate evidence about the Bidens.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supposed to hold a House vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, after a barrage of criticism from
Republicans for moving forward without one. Whether the open hearings and public testimony will provide any more substance than a
parade of national security bureaucrats ventilating their grievances about a president who sought to take a different course in
foreign policy is questionable.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest.
>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to
extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning
Assange.
Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered
by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he
attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.
Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand
the psychology of elite US WASPs.
These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the
cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria,
rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.
Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that
moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of
the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of
the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too
seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity
Washington has little time for.
Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged
those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to
wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What
were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser
visibility doing in his administration?
I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed
these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent
state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget,
Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.
We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind,
poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned
with appearances.
Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's
nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.
Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a
new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan,
making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.
Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by
publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record
shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem
Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar –a –Lago, and presented
Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the
press pretended it was White House policy all along.
Now We Come to Iran
Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the
United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most
destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the
shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.
Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran
back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to
cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo
sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.
Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military
deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly
chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak
president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold
their tents.
Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is
not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of
this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.
Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a
revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly
likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it
afterward.
Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his
administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now
serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support
him will remain wide shut.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter
@thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his
work via his Patreon site
.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06
A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an
acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is
Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the
administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.
Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51
I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the
assassination of Soleimani.
Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42
Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at
making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's
thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around
the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the
Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the
millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person
in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember
one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not
negotiations, have become the norm
So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were
there at one time.
Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,
Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United
States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:
"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives,
– and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."
***
Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth
the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life
for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.
I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others
who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and
almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! --
Patrick.
Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02
I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration
by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've
had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on
several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than
likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he
wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no
fan of Trump).
Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the
forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of
Independence.
Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19
Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just
been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep
State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what
we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their
Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something
else.
You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His
"negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his
interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is
that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO
is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title.
He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at
war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is
a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a
commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the
question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie
Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?
Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19
One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor
experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family
business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of
employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business
largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.
Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a
bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do
do.
I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the
bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it
was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with
the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in
with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.
PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46
Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.
Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00
Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids
deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures
completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home
water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally,
but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we
are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would
seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .
Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background
– who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody
"liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left
of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does
to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of
"swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the
third go around?
The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real
morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late
Here's China's unofficial response via this Global Times editorial . I
wish I could reproduce the art at the editorial's header as it's very spot-on:
"There is no new wording in the report, which can be seen as a collection of malicious
remarks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other anti-China US politicians and senators.
Right now, only a little more than 60 days are left for the current US administration. An
official from the State Department explained that the report is not meant to constrain the
next US administration. But the fact is the Department of State fears that the Biden
administration will adjust US-China relations, and the release of the report is part of their
efforts to consolidate the current extreme anti-China path.
"But most Chinese scholars who have read the report believe it is an insult to Kennan by
labeling the report as Kennan-style. Kennan, then US charge d'affaires in Moscow, sent an
8,000-word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union. At
least, there was no special political motive in Kennan's report. But the latest report is
trying to leave a legacy for the extreme anti-China policy adopted by the Trump
administration and fawning on Pompeo, which is evil in essence .
"The impulsive and capricious governing style of Donald Trump leaves sufficient room for
politicians like Pompeo to give free play to their ambitions. The Department of State has
become the governmental organ that has the most serious clashes with China, outperforming the
CIA and the Department of Defense.
"Diplomats are supposed to be communicators, but Pompeo and his team have chilled the
communication atmosphere with China. In the China direction, today's US Department of State
can close its door.
"Surrounded by such deep hostility and prejudice toward China and the wild ambition of the
secretary of state, how could the Department of State's Office of Policy Planning make out
anything objective about China? Their observation ability, cautious attitude toward research,
and sense of responsibility for history have been severely squeezed. They are just currying
favor from their seniors and manipulating extreme paths, pretending to be
'thoughtful....'
"Chinese diplomatic and academic circles look down upon the Pompeo team, which lacks
professionalism, and acts like a group of gangsters suddenly taking official positions.
They not only have messed things up, but also hope to build their nonsense as legacy.
Pompeo's choice of opportunists like Miles Yu as advisor in particular has increased Chinese
people's doubts over the 'amateurism' and 'immorality' of the Pompeo team's China
policy....
"The US' China policy is very much like 'drunk driving' internally while on the
international stage it's like sailing against the current." [My Emphasis]
There's not much more to add aside for asking barflies to read the entire editorial.
"Although it is hardly atypical of the President Trump administration, the document is
significant because it represents yet another attempt by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to
immortalize his Cold War confrontation between the US and China, bind the succeeding
administration to it and most strikingly, institutionalize anti-Beijing ideas into American
bureaucracy.
"The push against China by the Trump White House is not designed to be a passing phase,
but a permanent and defining change of direction, for which this entire term in office has
sought to prepare. This document aims to be a blueprint for long-term ideological struggle
and a series of aspirations for maintaining hegemony, an affirmation of priority and a
statement that things cannot " go back to normal ". But it makes no guarantee that the
US can ever adequately understand China, or that it will succeed in its aims.
"The reference to George F. Kennan in pitching this document is appealing given the
historical parallels, but it is not an exact fit and this, in turn, helps shine a light on
Pompeo's own ignorance of China. It might be described in one simple sentence: China is not
the Soviet Union and the ideological stakes are not quite the same." [Emphasis Original]
While I'd agree that differences in ideology exist between China and the Outlaw US Empire,
it is the Empire that's constructed upon and is living the Big Lie inherent within
Neoliberalism, while China continues to perfect its already very efficient system of
Collective Libertarianism through its revamped Democratic Centralism. The really big
fundamental difference is that China has absolutely no need to lie to its people, whereas the
exact opposite's true within the Neoliberal West. After a lengthy period of public input, the
government meets and eventually publishes its 5-year plan of development, which is contained
within an even larger plan that's also been devised with public input and once put together
is also published for public consumption. And since 2010, all plans have existed within
China's UN 2030 Development plan, which is also available to the public. In a great many
respects. China is a more open society than the Outlaw US Empire. Why? Because it doesn't
need to lie to its citizens because it fights against the corruption that provides the reason
for such lies--China has no Financial Parasitism it must mask from its citizens whereas the
Outlaw US Empire is drowning in a massive sea of corruption that is killing it. Clearly,
Pompeo wants that to continue.
RSH's warning that Trump could still start a war should be taken very seriously. Trump has
vowed that he will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Will he leave office without
ENSURING that they cannot?
I don't think for a minute think that Zionist Biden will do anything to upset Israel. But
the election of Biden is a convenient excuse for Trump to start a war (probably based on a
false flag of some sort) that Biden (or Kamala-Hillary) will "inherit".
@ pnyx #43 . . .on Biden. Just think of the warmongering role he played for the Iraq war. The Neocons
would have an easier time with Biden than with Tronald
Yes. Biden is a Clintonite, Trump was anti-Clinton.
The US war in Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom - with its death, destruction and displacement
has been rightly called the worst US foreign policy move ever.
The Clintons started it, and then promoted it with Biden's assistance as Chair of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton announces he has ordered air strikes against
Iraq because it refused to cooperate with United Nations (U.N.) weapons inspectors.
Trump's foreign policies were remarkably different? How? He assassinated an Iranian
general, which nearly had the US enter into a hot war with Iran, bombed Syria twice, put
additional sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the DPRK. Trump's State Department has
successfully enacted regime change in Zimbabwe, Sudan, El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Bolivia
(Mike Pompeo congratulating Luis Arce on his win -- very suspicious), and is trying regime
change in Hong Kong, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe again, and as
of late, Nigeria.
You could argue that Trump wants Iran to be somewhat stronger so he can sell more weapons
to his MIC buddies and profit that way, therefore he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, and
the weapons import/export sanctions on Iran expired. But that's a different and more brash
method of managing Empire. It's different from Biden's "strategic de-escalation" policy with
Iran via the Iran nuclear deal, but not that one that necessarily yields better results for
Iran in the long term.
Calm down folks, the elected officials in the US have been puppets of the elite for the
entire history of the country.
The problem we're facing is within the elite community and far above any government's
control.
They didn't legalize drone striking "terrorists" any where on the globe by accident.
This means the elite are terrified of the fact that the internet and Trump both have exposed
them for the morally bankrupt, greedy, mass murdering psychopaths they truly are.
The accidental presidency of Trump made them realize that their useful idiots(elected
officials) where more idiots than useful and that they had to use the state sponsored
monopolies in the press as well as their privately controlled publicly funded covert
community to steer the narrative away from actual reality into their alternative commoditized
version of reality.
Trump was never trying to defend America from the elite for the common man. He was trying
to exploit the elite who had rejected him and his father for decades as well as cash in on
their predicament in order to pay off his debts and start his own reality TV network.
I agree Trump was useful and informative but in the end he, like us is just along for the
ride.
Don't do anything rash and don't for one second think a regime change in America is a rare
occurrence. Remember the Kennedy's ?
The only way to win is to not become one of the elite's useful idiots by lashing out
against another citizen. Poor and middle class only get the illusion they help decide
policy.
The policy is decided and auctioned off within the billionaire funded think tanks and sent to
the useful idiots in DC to be rubber stamped in order to trick you into thinking the
legislative branch is legitimate. These people could f*ck up a two car parade and prove it
over and over again.
Stay sane folks, the motives haven't changed in centuries and the elite are far more
scared of us than they are the other elite's because they all know they're all cowards.
In addition, considering Trump was supposedly a Russian puppet, Congress under his admin
passed a bill which allowed the US to arm Ukraine against Russia even more.
Wonderful and thought provoking analysis of current political affairs b. However I would
like to add that Biden and Trump are the products of political trends that have deep roots in
modern US and world political affairs that have been ongoing for some 100 years or more.
Biden and Trump did not occur in a vacuum. Both are products of the two world wars that were
fought in the last century. More recently, the US since 1940 and continuing to the present
day, has been actively preparing or fighting a major war somewhere on this planet. This
development has in turn created a vast military and civilian bureaucracy that constantly
needs to be fed a diet of real or imagined threats in order to survive.
With his laughable attempts at diplomacy and general hawkishness, he's certainly in the
runnings for the honor. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a press conference at the
State Department in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2020. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/POOL/AFP via
Getty Images) |
12:01 AM
Is Mike Pompeo the worst secretary of state ever? He's been awful, no doubt. However, there
are 69 other contenders for that title.
Among modern secretaries, Colin Powell was misused by George W. Bush, who defrauded the
country in selling the tragically misbegotten invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright, her mindset
permanently stuck in Adolf Hitler's world, stands out for her enthusiastic embrace of war for
others to fight. Alexander Haig achieved little beyond claiming to be in charge in the wake of
the assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan. William Rogers was overshadowed by National
Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who eventually took the latter's position.
Going back a bit further, Robert Lansing helped maneuver the U.S. into World War I, one of
the dumbest, most counterproductive moves in American history. The earlier one looks, the more
circumstances diverge, making any comparative judgment more difficult.
Still, about the best that can be said of Pompeo is that he has not gotten America into any
new wars, despite his best efforts. Most often he has played the anti-diplomat, determined to
insult, hector, demand, insist, dictate, threaten, harangue, and impose. But never persuade.
The results speak for themselves: the administration's record lacks any notable successes that
benefit the U.S, the supposed purpose of an "America First" foreign policy. There was a bit of
good, a lot of bad, and some real ugly.
A solid good was President Donald Trump's most important diplomatic initiative: his opening
with North Korea. Pompeo took over in March 2018, with the first summit already planned. That
initiative faltered the following year at the second summit in Hanoi, which was Pompeo's
responsibility.
Alas, the secretary lost points by apparently doing nothing to disabuse the president of the
belief that Pyongyang was prepared to turn over its entire arsenal with the hope that
Washington would look favorably upon its future aspirations. That was never going to happen,
especially after the allied double-cross of Libya, which yielded its missiles and nascent
nuclear program, and after Trump dumped the nuclear accord with Iran, demanding that Tehran
abjectly surrender its independent foreign policy. The North can easily imagine similar
mistreatment, by this or a future administration.
Washington has also pursued better relations with India, which is a positive. As elsewhere,
however, concern about human rights violations is almost entirely absent from Pompeo's
portfolio unless it operates as a weapon against an adversary. The secretary cheerfully holds
the coat of allied dictators as they jail, torture, and murder. Such is the case with Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, who has abetted if not aided rising religious persecution.
The Abrahamic accords between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates were a tepid
good. Improved relations between Arabs and Israelis are useful, though strengthening two
authoritarian regimes is not. The Bahraini Sunni monarchy sits atop a Shia population with the
backing of the Saudi military, while the Emirates, nicknamed "Little Sparta," by the Pentagon
-- as if that's a compliment -- has used its military to commit murder and mayhem against Yemen
in a war of political aggression and economic exploitation. The related negotiations with Sudan
have been worse, using an unjust terrorist state designation to force recognition of Israel,
which will undermine the democracy that has yet to be fully born after last year's popular
revolution.
Examples of bad are far more common. For example, Pompeo has worked to thwart the
president's evident desire to exit "endless wars." Nineteen years of nation-building in
Afghanistan is enough. The U.S. does not belong in the Syrian civil war. Iraq and its neighbors
are capable of and should deal with whatever remains of the Islamic State.
The secretary has played an equally malign role in Europe, undercutting his boss -- and, not
incidentally, the American people -- by working to spend more on, and place more troops in, the
continent, even as Trump pushed the Europeans to do more on their own defense. This is an inane
strategy: Washington should cut defense welfare to states with the capability to protect
themselves and allow them to decide how to proceed.
Much the same policy has played out with America's relationship to South Korea. Japan has
escaped most of that pressure. Yet consider the defensive capabilities against China for Japan
and the region if Tokyo spent not 1 percent of GDP on its military, but 2 or 3 percent. And why
shouldn't it do so, instead of expecting Americans to do the job for it?
The secretary turned human rights into a political weapon, sacrificing any credibility on
the issue. He tears up while criticizing Iran but kowtows to the Saudi royals, who are far more
brutal killers. He is horrified by the crimes committed by Venezuela's Maduro regime, but
spreads love to Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has punished the slightest criticism, and
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is turning Turkey into an autocracy. Pompeo actually introduced a new
initiative in support of unalienable rights with the support of countries like Saudi
Arabia and other assorted tyrannies.
Then there is the ugly. Using sanctions to try starve the people of Syria and Venezuela in
order to force their governments to yield to America is not just immoral but ineffective. Both
regimes have survived much and are not inclined to surrender.
At least Venezuela is a matter of geographic interest to Washington. Syria has never
mattered to U.S. security and Pompeo should have backed the president's effort to bring home
all American troops. Today, U.S. and Russian troops are clashing there over the
administration's bizarre and illegal seizure of Syrian oilfields. Also inexplicable is
reinforcing six decades of failure by tightening sanctions on Cuba; the private business
community there has suffered badly as a result, reducing what was becoming a sharp challenge to
the political authorities during the waning days of the Obama administration.
The fixation on Iran, which appears to come more from Pompeo than Trump, can best be
explained as turning Mideast policy over to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The result of abandoning
the nuclear accord has been nothing short of catastrophic. The Iranians have refused to
negotiate. Instead they ramped up nuclear reprocessing, interfered with Gulf tanker traffic,
attacked Saudi oil facilities, and attacked U.S. bases and the embassy in Iraq. Far from
reestablishing deterrence, as claimed, the secretary was left to whimper and whine that he
might have to close America's embassy in Baghdad.
Pompeo has taken the lead in the administration's shameful policy toward Saudi Arabia,
aiding it in its war of aggression against impoverished Yemen. That nation has been at war
within and without for most of its existence. Riyadh decided to invade to restore a puppet
regime to power, turning typical internal discord into a sectarian war in which Tehran was able
to bleed the ineffective Saudi armed forces, which were armed and aided by the Pentagon. In
this way, the secretary has made the American population into accomplices to war crimes.
Even more foolish geopolitically, Pompeo has matched Albright's retreat to World War II
clichés with a stroll back into the Cold War. Russia is an unpleasant actor but doesn't
threaten American security. Europe is capable of defending itself. Alas, constantly piling on
sanctions without providing an off-ramp ensures continued Russian hostility and a tilt toward
China in that burgeoning struggle. How does this make any sense for America?
Finally, Pompeo has been his blundering, maladroit, offensive self in seeking to launch an
American-led campaign against the People's Republic of China. Beijing poses a serious
challenge, but not primarily a security issue. No one believes that the PRC plans to launch an
armada across the Pacific to conquer Hawaii. The issue is Washington's willingness to pay the
cost to forever treat Asia-Pacific waters as an American lake.
As for other issues, the U.S. needs work in concert with friendly powers. Pompeo has done
his best to drive away potential partners: for instance, the G-7 refused his demand to call
COVID-19 the Wuhan Virus and even allies such as South Korea have remained far more measured in
their relations with China, determined not to turn their large neighbor into an enemy. In what
promises to be a long and complicated relationship, genuine and serious diplomacy, which
obviously lies beyond Pompeo's limited capabilities, is required.
On the personal side, he appears to have abused his position for both personal and
ideological advantage. For example, so committed to showing his fealty to Riyadh, he declared
an "emergency" to thwart congressional opposition and rush munitions to the Saudi military so
it could kill more Yemeni civilians. He then sought to impede a departmental investigation,
pressuring and firing the inspector general. What prompted his determination to so avidly
assist a ruler who is ostentatiously vile, reckless, and even criminal is one of the greatest
mysteries of his tenure.
Tragically, Pompeo proved to be one of the greatest obstacles to the best of the president's
international agenda. In a speech delivered last year in which he claimed to be implementing
the Founders' foreign policy vision, he denigrated diplomacy and its successful fruits, such as
opening up both Cuba and Iran to potentially corrosive outside influences, which is the most
likely strategy to induce change over the long term. This approach would be more in sync with
Trump's desire to deal with countries such as North Korea and Iran.
Indeed, left to his own devices, Pompeo would likely have America at war with Iran and
perhaps beyond -- Venezuela, China, and/or Russia. His belligerence serves the American people
badly. As does his consistent campaign, conscious or not, to thwart the president's brave but
incompetent attempts to escape largely braindead practices enforced by what Ben Rhodes termed
"the Blob," the foreign policy establishment that dominates the field.
The secretary has forgotten that his job is not to push his personal ideological line.
Rather, it is to advance the interests of the American people, with a special emphasis on
defending their lives, territory, liberties, constitutional system, and prosperity. In this, he
has failed consistently. Maybe he isn't the worst secretary of state in history. But surely he
is one of the worst.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
The Blob will dominate the USA foreign policy, no matter who wins.
Notable quotes:
"... I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to say about China. ..."
"... The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it. ..."
"... Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart. The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ... ..."
"... Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I bet Harris is one as well. ..."
"... I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit. ..."
"... Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers. ..."
"... The rest of the world knows that the US is not agreement capable, it does not matter for Iran one bit what happens on November 3rd. ..."
"... I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it. ..."
"... The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work. The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now, unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era. ..."
"... The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction. ..."
"... Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab. Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will continue, the status quo is preserved..) ..."
"... That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident, clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason. ..."
"... To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was trying so hard. ..."
"... The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time. ..."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to
some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a
stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him.
American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
I also agree that Trump might actually have the support needed for a landslide win, not
so much because of the vilification but because of the arson and looting imo. A lot of
Trump supporters are keeping their heads down atm (and who can blame them) However, now it
is my turn to make a prediction. I predict mass unrest on polling day. it is well accepted
that the majority of the Democrat voters (fraudulent or not) are going to vote by post.
Conversely most Trump supporters are likely to vote in person on the day (or try to at
least)
I expect a concerted attempt to disrupt the polls by people who know that it will
disproportionately affect the Trump vote. I expect violent clashes (with both sides trading
blame) and a result that will please nobody. The worms are not going back into the can.
if I am wrong then I will be big enough to say so on the first appropriate thread on
this site, fair enough?
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and
even read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State, of which an open preview can
be read here. Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read here.
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far
superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success
suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what
any Western source has to say about China.
I just paused by their tavern to see what elixirs of despair or mirth they have on offer
today. Pour a strong drink comrades and scroll through the cellar. Always worth a
visit.
If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as
the Beelzebub? Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 112
Because he's the heel and none of the negative coverage they give him sticks, most often
on purpose. Don't mistake their serious tones and somber pronouncements for genuineness.
It's not. The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate
news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it.
I am aware of the fact that corruption is rife in both parties. I saw the link to the
Biden bus incident, deplorable yes but hardly on the same scale as the massive rioting,
looting and intimidation of the BLM movement, they didn't actually burn down half the
neighborhood did they. Organized voting obstruction will largely be confined to swing
states for obvious reasons. I made my predictions, we will see.
Just to be clear, I don't even live in the US, I am British. If I did live in the US I
wouldn't vote for either party, I'm not a 'lesser of two evils' kind of guy. To be frank I
am viewing events in the US with considerable trepidation, I regard what happens in the US
as a window into the likely future of the UK and the rest of Europe. I fear that a nuclear
war may well occur sometime in the near future, quite possibly by accident owing to the
continual cutting of warning times, mainly by the US. A very powerful nuclear armed country
convulsed by civil unrest is a very dangerous entity, I fear the worst and so should we all
imo.
Anyway thank you for being polite and civilised and for including actual information
with your replies.
OT..I just read this translation from a Russian link...most agreeable as a counterpoise to
Exceptional Nation nuttiness:
"Construction of the industrial complex, where high-speed trains will be produced,
began in the Urals. In five years, Russia will have a domestic rolling stock for the VSM
- high-speed highways. Moreover, the level of localization of production is stated at
80%, which means additional orders for the Russian industry."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him
to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much
of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working
for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart.
The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These
commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and
it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ...
As far as Obama's birth certificate, since his mom was a CIA officer using the Ford
Foundation as cover during the murder of millions of leftists in Indonesia, I am sure she
took time out to make sure he was born on US soil. All that stuff about him growing up on
embassy row in Indonesia while the left was being slaughtered is carefully taken out of the
story. Not his fault but it was quite a slaughter of humans and we know her employer was
deeply involved. Going into the Indonesian villages to do studies. Really, studies and
observations. They used to call it SOG groups.
Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for
president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I
bet Harris is one as well.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable.
Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse
shit.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly
the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.
Because the FBI's evidence cleaner/tamperer division's mandate will be greatly expanded,
as will the powers of the Silicone Valley Tekkies to more comprehensively throttle public
free speech on electronic media, that the deep state's Invisible Hand disapproves of.
Trump is about controlled demolition of the empire NemesisCalling @ 5.
B summarized the style differences very well. But failed to mention the greater problem.
3 votes at polls every four years is not democracy<= no American is in charge of any
thing the USA does.
the layers in the global power stack (each nation state the same):
layer 1: global franchisor sets rules of play; establishes goals <=local nation
state franchisees must obtain to remain in power.
Layer 2: oligarch <= national (wall street beneficiaries who use their wealth to
conform national outcome consistent with global powers).
Layer 3: copyright y patent monopoly power constitute 90% of corporate Assets.
Layer 4: think tank and other private orgs
public<= layer 5: 527 elected government <= a tool to regulate members of
public
Layer 6: Intergov Bureaucracies limit and direct elected power to global goals.
public<= layer 7: the 340,000,000 members of the media regulated public
layer 8: stop and go economic system control
layer 9: media controls info environment & public narrative (many
techniques)
all layers but 5 and 7 are contained within an envelop of privately owned control
freaks.
Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private
media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers.
Article II and amendment 12 clearly deny American people any say in who is to be the P
and VP of the USA.
Agree with Nemesiscalling, since 1947, standing orders from Layer 1<= demo the
American excellence; deny superior economic power to average Americans . standing orders
<=homogenize the world and standardize its governance.
American lifestyle and quality of life is indifferent to who the media puts into the
white house.
by c1ue @ 26 said it best "Anyone against the "right" and "proper" Democrat sellouts to
pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this view that galvanized the
vote against HRC in 2016." the method used by the public layers is reflected here, it is
called divide and conquer.
B reviewed the elements and factors that maintain the division of the masses..
On the absence of a real left in the US ( is all right and more right..)and of a real
program which could include real changes that could make any difference in people´s
lives, on that what matters is political technology and communication based on demonizing
the other candidate which translates in deep polarizing of societies with unexpected
unknown consequences..
" If Trump were re-elected for another four years, it would be a real calamity and
armed conflicts could even break out by the most radical groups, so that the country
could be paralyzed "
"The ideological profile and policy of the United States is that of the president and,
each one, even if they are from the same party, has maintained quite different political
lines throughout history", says Rafael García, professor of International
Relations at the USC. For this reason, he affirms that, in North America, "there is no
strong party structure, but rather that the party acts as an electoral structure and it
is on the candidates of each moment that certain policies are formed."
DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS. So much so that, as the professor explains, "the
ideological configuration of the parties in the 20th century changed radically". On the
one hand, he alludes to the fact that the Democrat, "in historical terms, was the party
of the southern states, when they faced each other in the Civil War; racist states, which
lasted until the 1920s ". Precisely, the political scientist indicates that "it was
shortly before when the change took place, with the Roosevelt presidency, that he decided
to change the configuration of the Democratic party as a result of the crisis of 29".
On the other hand, the Republican party, he points out, "was that of the union, that
of the northern states, championed by Lincoln; the abolitionist party and that of the
blacks ". So how did these changes come about until today? Rafael García
points to "a consequence of the political strategies that the presidents embodied at
all times, not because there was an ideological line behind each party ."
TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE AMERICAN MODEL TO THE EUROPEAN. For Rafael García, the
Spaniards, when speaking of US politics, "make a mistake in translating our political
structures" to those there. In other words, "in Europe the duality between left and
right is widely assumed and we unconsciously transfer it to US policy." "That is a
complete error" , sentence.
And it is that there " there is neither right nor left, there is right and more
right ", affirms the professor. Which means that there does not exist and did not
exist a historical labor-union party as such. In fact, the transmutation that is usually
made from the democratic party to 'social democratic' is not correct . For
García, Biden embodies "a more moderate man than the crazy Trump, but that does
not mean that he has some kind of relationship with a left-wing thought ."
RIGHT AND RIGHT. "A multimillionaire gentleman, absolute representative of the
establishment" (referring to Biden), and "a traditional gentleman, more conservative"
(referring to Trump) ". "Although Biden is a Democrat, who perhaps holds stronger
principles and is hopeful, identifying him with the left is still a long way from
reality," he says. Therefore, it is denied that the Democrats are the American left
and the Republicans the right .
THE CAMPAIGN LACKS PROGRAMMATIC INTEREST. For the USC political scientist, the US
electoral campaign lacks interest: "It is absurd, it seems like a disqualification
competition in which a political or government program is not exposed ." And every
time Spain is also getting closer to that model of disputes.
"We are Americanized, in the sense that the weight of the parties is also
being diluted in Spain in favor of the candidatesThese advisers are responsible
for the growing division that is taking place in Western society ," he says.
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL ADVISORS. In Rafael García's opinion,
the decision margin "is shrinking", that is, "the autonomy capacity of governments to
make decisions is smaller, and they are conditioned ". So, what is the difference, in
practice, in management, between PP and PSOE? "Little thing, in the end, little thing,"
he asserts.
That is why " that little thing can not be said to the voter, but must be mobilized
with a degree of identification, unconditional adherence, so that it can be recognized in
a brand ." And what is this transformation of Spanish politics due to? The professor
is clear about it: " It is a translation of commercial marketing techniques to
politics." Thus, a marketing advisor must "build customer loyalty" and a political
advisor should build voter loyalty .
Now, if there are no significant differences between the two options, how to
achieve it? "Through a demonization of the opposite and the creation of a hostility that
is dangerous, because the divisions to which society is returning are irreconcilable
." In this way, García believes that " it is the work of political advisers
who, apart from the difficulties that exist in societies, which are many, polarize them
when it comes to building and mobilizing a faithful electorate, to the point that they
make no difference what the party says or what the leader says ".
In the United States, as evidenced by this expert, "it does not matter if Trump
does the atrocities he does, or if he said in the previous campaign that he could murder
a person on Fifth Avenue in New York without anything happening to him ." This,
transferred to the Spanish sphere, "assumes that the party can do any outrage: fraud,
embezzlement, illegal financing ...". "That is something we are seeing, whatever party it
is, but for the faithful voter it does not matter, because their party will continue to
be so and will continue to listen to the channel and read the newspaper that supports
it," he says.
THE ELECTORAL RESULT WILL BE EXTENDED OVER TIME. "I have no idea nor do I want to make
forecasts, but I consider that Trump is a calamity and that if he were there for four
more years it would be an absolute calamity ", says Professor García. However,
" there is a state of opinion that fears that the result of these elections will be
complicated and that there will be challenges, so that the end result will be a
diabolical process of recount, county-by-county challenges, repetitions in certain
districts. .. a real madness that can last several months ", he warns, something
that," with this polarization trail, it is not known how it could end. "
" I am referring to the outbreak of armed conflicts; These people have weapons,
radical groups, some of them crazy and who can shoot themselves in a demonstration, doing
outrages as part of the institutional paralysis in which the country can be plunged
", he asserts.
This is how people, like those at SST, who lied about the real difference amongst
Democrats and Republicans in real effective changes of policy, shouting to the four winds
that "the Communists are coming", when they are not, and this way spread hatred and
division amongst the US society as if there was no tomorrow so that to conserve their "tax
cut", could end witnessing the total destruction of the US, not only as "Empire" ( a
process already in march before Corona-fear and 2020 electoral process, a construct of
decades of lying the electorate for the greed of a minority...), but also as a nation
state. All these people who, holding privileged insider knowledege of the funtioning of the
state as former insiders, should be held accountable for their willing and conscious
participation in the build up of the social and economic disastaer to come....
Forecast at the end of the article posted and quoted above:
The future: Institutional paralysis
··· An institutional paralysis like the one that can come
after 3-N "could already occur in 2000, in the elections between George Bush Jr. and Al
Gore, but the latter accepted the results even though they were open to challenge, and
that it avoided institutional collapse".
··· However, "now it does not seem that either of the two
candidates is going to have a gesture of these characteristics, with which, if doubts
already appear, it will not only be in the State, but the final collapse may be extremely
long and with unimaginable consequences ", indicates Professor García. "It seems
to me that the United States has a terrible situation ahead ", he sentenced.
A scene of Game of Thrones which could summarize 2020 US election campaign, that it
was based on throwing dirty to each other....But who has the real "power", not the
"government"?:
@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122
I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the
opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the
disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it.
The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work.
The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was
never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now,
unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era.
The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to
produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from
the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only
way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction.
Trump's ideology will destroy the American Empire. It will collapse under a wave of
hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, shortage of goods and collapsing economic
output.
The manufacturing sector saw 17,000 jobs added after four months of flat activity. This
followed a strong run of an average of 22,000 manufacturing jobs added every month in
2018 and 15,800 per month in 2017. Those gains followed two weak years that saw 7,000
manufacturing jobs lost in 2016 and only 5,800 per month added in 2015.
In the last 30 months of President Obama's term, manufacturing employment grew by
185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump's first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs,
expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase
of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than
under Obama, a 170% advantage
As Trump is going to win (provided the usual conditions pertain, fraud is not over the
normal levels, and the whole sh*t-story doesn't end up in the courts or fought out on the
streets, whereupon no reasoned predictions can be made), speculation about Biden as Prez.
is a waste of time.
The last part of the Pepe piece in b's post, which gives reasons to not vote Biden, my
take.:
Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab.
Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was
from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will
continue, the status quo is preserved..)
Anyway, the ACA was a damp squib, it didn't solve anything, and depending on pov was in
effect a gift to Mega Insurance or was just 'lame' or as often, 'favored some over others'
etc.
Then the Financial Crisis hit. The Obama admin. didn't prevent it (one might argue they
couldn't not sure) and it didn't 'repair' as far as the ppl were concerned. Banks and Some
Big Cos were bailed out - millions of homeowners were tossed to the curb by Banks. Child
poverty, hunger, increased; wages weren't upped, health stats got worse No need to go on -
this provoked tremendous anger. The 2010 elections saw big R gains, 2014 they took the
Senate, iirc.
(Who cared about foreign parts like Ukraine, Syria? is what I'm saying.)
That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was
the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident,
clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click
bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason.
DT's electoral promises were both opportunistic and more profound: like fire-brand
preachers of old, Build The Wall - MAGA - i.e. pledging a return to the past (see, again
the opposite of Barry, who hoped for the future) -- Stop the wars, undo past mistakes (Dems
don't run on anti-war..!), and, most important:
Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions
of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them.
Imho, Trump's record (null or abysmal or whatever depending on pov) is not enough for
rejecting him in favor of loathed "failed" policies of the past - Clinton gang, Biden a
part of it, Obama, etc. (By US voters I mean.)
but see Kiza 8, gottlieb 63, dave 72, Jack, others, >> no difference.
...Bringing the supply chain back to the US and re-industrialising the US isn't going to
happen overnight or even in a couple of quarters. Just like the process to de-industrialise
didn't happen overnight. But that the process has started, it is undeniable, and will only
pick up pace when he wins a second term.
4 new Trafalgar polls came out for 10/29: Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Michigan. Trump
expanded his lead on Biden in Florida and Michigan vs. Trafalgar's earlier October
polls:
FL from +2.3% Trump to +2.7%
MI from +0.6% Trump to +2.5%
Trump did worse in Nevada and AZ: AZ from +4% Trump to +2.5%.
Nevada polled +2.3% Biden
Once again: the question is if Trump outperforms vs. MSM polls. If he repeats anywhere
near his 2016 - he will win.
Trump can only win again if the establishment/deep state is once again exceptionally
overconfident and asleep in the control room. They have numerous ways of swinging the
election at the last hour, from pre-hacked Diebold paperless voting machines to hanging
chads to simply having their operatives scattered around the nation throw ballots away and
fabricate the tallies. Oddly enough this extreme carelessness is still possible. The
establishment/deep state have not yet come to terms with what caused their plans to blow up
in 2016 and really do seriously believe that Russia had something to do with it, even
though they have no idea what Russia might have actually done to wreck their expected
electoral blowout by Clinton. They also think that part of the problem was that Trump
wasn't vilified harshly enough (they wanted the election to at least appear competitive),
and they think they have that covered this time around. It could be that the over-the-top
hysteria from the TDS victims has them overestimating the anti-Trump sentiment, though.
Still, the establishment/deep state screwing up exactly the same way twice in a row
doesn't seem likely. Even so, their profound incompetence continues to astonish, so maybe
we will once again get treated to the delightful spectacle of crowds of middle class faux
left dilettante snowflakes melting down.
It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of
money. My health stock investment has almost doubled during Trump's tenure.
vk @158 - Not acreage - but based (until Andrew Jackson, hardly any principled person's
prez) on PROPERTY VALUE. JUST as in the good ol' UK. Yep - despite NPR folks believing
otherwise (clealry never visited a history book) - the aristo controlled (in what way
really different?) Britain was actually a "democracy":, and was so from Magna Carta on...
Of course it was a, how to say, constrained, constricted "democracy," but then so was the
original one in Athens. Those who count as THE Demos - always been a matter for property
holder concern... So in GB - male, 21 and over and owning a property of a taxable (always
this, huh) value of a certain sum. Ensured that the hoi polloi males over 21 couldn't vote
- and for the exact same reasons, I do not doubt, as the intentions behind the Electoral
College construct by those less than admirable FFs. Gotta prevent the vast masses of the
population - the great unwashed, "the bewildered herd" in Hamilton's verbiage I do believe
- from having the ability to grab (well, they knew all about blood-letting theft of land,
after all, didn't they?) that sacred "property." (Sacred, surely 'cos owned by the
equivalent of the Murican aristos.)
@Down South #159
It shouldn't be surprising. Actual doctors and nurses are, by and large, really great
people. They don't want to turn away anyone.
The poorest in America can't afford health care - even the middle class can't really as
testified to by the millions of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Hospitals thus
were losing large sums of profit treating people who simply could not pay.
Obamacare threw many (not all) of those people onto health insurance company plans by
having the government pay the health insurance premium and then having the existing health
insurance customers pay via increased premiums - all this on top of the ongoing health care
profiteering. That's why Obamacare should really have been called "No Health Insurance
Company or Hospital Left Behind".
The existence of Obamacare also distracts people from the real problem: actual
affordable health care - which every other nation in the world except the US has, entirely
due to national health care.
I've posted this before - I will post it again.
In 2006, I left the semiconductor software industry on my own because I disagreed with
management decisions to outsource all jobs to India rather than change their fundamentally
flawed business model. Semiconductor software companies are the only part of the design
chain that charges by software license rather than per part made - this was great in the
early days of semiconductors but is a disaster when the industry consolidates to 5 large
multinational but US based companies.
In 2007, I experienced a retinal detachment right after my COBRA ended. I paid $35,000
in cash to get that fixed - including a 5 hour total elapsed journey through a hospital
which included a 1 hour surgical room occupancy and 1 hour of recovery time. In the door at
6:30 am and waiting for a taxi at 12:30 pm. The UCSF doctor that attended to me (and did a
great job to be clear) said his fee out of all that was $1200.
The following year, some cells stirred loose by the corrective surgery landed on my
now-attached retina and started reproducing. Instead of coughing up another $35K (or more),
I chose to fly to Australia, consult with the best eye doctor recommended by the Royal
Opthalmological Society of Australia and New Zealand.
That doctor's office was literally a light year more advanced than UCSF - supposedly one of
the premier teaching hospitals in the US. I pay him AU$5000 - US$4000 at the time, plus
another AU$800 for the hospital visit. The Sydney Eye Hospital gave me the choice of
staying a 2nd night (I stayed 1 night because I was at the end of the queue for the day, as
a foreigner), for free, including meals and medications administered on site.
I paid literally 1/7th the price in AU vs. the US - an Australia is not a 3rd world
country. The doctor got paid 3.5x in absolute terms. The service I received was immensely
better. Even including travel costs: flight plus 2 weeks in AU (which I was vacationing),
the overall cost was still 1/5th of my US experience.
That opened my eyes (literally) to just how fucked up the US system is.
@Don Bacon #165
Stock price doesn't bear any short term correlation with profits.
Just look at Tesla, Uber and what not.
Health care sector profits have increased disproportionately since Obamacare:
CFR report on health insurance company profits
Since ACA implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the
S&P 500 by 106 percent.
You're right. The early liberals - specially from the American South - loved to compare
themselves with the Athenian Republic. The rationale is that the existence of slaves
enabled them to enjoy unparalleled freedom. Black slaves were frequently compared with
helots when the problem of slave revolts appeared (with the pro-abolitionists evoking the
figure of Spartacus). The South considered itself freer than the North in the USA - it was
only after their destruction in 1865 that the tide turned and the North became,
retrospectively, the paragon of liberal freedom.
In Europe, England was considered the ultimate free nation. Even American liberals
(including Benjamin Franklin) built up their legitimacy on being of English stock
(Anglo-Saxon race). With time, liberals begun to legitimize their hegemony with a worldwide
racial hierarchy - hence the definition of American democracy as Herrenvolk Democracy
("Master race democracy").
And yes, the original liberals considered the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as their birth
date - not the French Revolution of 1789 (which they condemned as illiberal, or "radical").
The founders of neoliberalism (Hayek, Mises, etc. etc.) put 1870 as the apex of liberalism,
which they tried to revive.
Escobar writes: "In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of
the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy
achievement"
Anyone who actually thinks this is either ignorant or moronic. Biden will absolutely
require Iran to limit their ballistic missiles before "rejoining" that then-altered deal.
Iran will never let this happen. Thus the deal is essentially dead [as far as US
involvement goes, which the other parties should ignore]. MOA notes this as well.
I don't know why though MOA refers to Escobar at all here though. The ignorance
demonstrated in the above quote should be enough to disqualify such a person from any
discussion about Biden, Iran, etc. and to also ignore anything else such a person claims.
You might as well quote a schizophrenic you meet down by the river for his take on Iran and
the JCPOA. Might as well learn sign language and ask the chimps at your local zoo what they
think about it.
You are not the only American who is doing it. They have even developed a term for it -
medical tourism:
With rising healthcare costs in the US and the rise of health tourism destinations that
offer quality and affordable healthcare perked up by a beautiful travel experience,
Americans are scampering to book appointments with healthcare providers far away from
home. Yearly, millions of patients travel from countries lacking healthcare
infrastructure or less advanced in a particular area of medical care to countries that
provide highly-specialized medical care.
Noirette @161: " Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but
criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl,
part of them."
True enough, and as even the bunny claims, this was part of the act. But those who think
Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation
for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public
exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites
because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.
Keep in mind that one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects
of US presidential elections is the "electoral mandate" . Far more important than
specific campaign promises is the general tone of the campaign. If a winning candidate had
campaigned on ending wars, bringing jobs back from abroad, and fighting corruption in
government, this isn't just an indication that the public wants something done about these
issues. First and foremost it forces an acknowledgement that these are indeed major issues
that the public wants to be part of the national discourse that the capitalist mass media
tries to control. Allowing these issues to become part of the national discourse is
diametrically opposed to the interests of the power elites. They do not want these issues
to even be discussed, much less addressed by the state.
So why would they intentionally force these issues into the forefront of national
discourse? That is, after all, what Trump's victory did, despite the establishment's best
efforts to distract with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Racism, sexism and
pussy-grabbing, oh my!" . These issues were already smoldering below the surface due to
Sanders' campaign, so why would the elites want them fanned into flames?
Answer: They didn't. As much as the issues that the winner campaigns on getting elevated
in priority by the "electoral mandate" , the loser's issues get diminished. Trump
was supposed to lose, and lose bigly, and in the process the things he campaigned on were
supposed to be crushed down to objects of ridicule by the corporate mass media. Trump's
resounding defeat was supposed to signal that Americans rejected Trump's "conspiracy
theories" about some fictitious "deep state" that only existed in Trump's
imagination, burying the suspicions that the election fraud committed against Sanders
aroused. Trump being ignominiously trounced was supposed to allow the mass media to say
that Americans unequivocally voiced their opposition to ending war and their support for
intervention in Syria, clearing the way for Clinton's "no fly zone" . Trump being
utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables" , convincing them with finality that there will never again be
good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics, while at the same
time crippling their resistance to the social engineering of "identity politics" ;
social engineering that I should point out is even more ill-conceived and incompetently
executed than the 737MAX MCAS system.
Trump was supposed to lose and take those issues with him to the dustbin of history.
It is important to understand this point because it clarifies who our enemies really are
and helps us to understand how they view the world.
Ancient Athens excluded from power slaves and resident foreigners (metics). Also women in
the families of male citizens, although one could argue that they had virtual
representation through the male citizens in their families. So also for the children in
citizens' families, although they would have full rights once they reached adulthood. The
adult male citizens who had full political rights were about 20 percent of the population
of Attica.
And even the poorest citizens had much more political power than average citizens of
today's so-called democracies have today. They could attend and vote in the Assembly, they
could be chosen by lot to serve in such bodies as the Council and juries, and to serve in
most offices. And for doing all these things there was pay, so that poor citizens had
particular motivation to participate, which they did. Just read Aristophanes. No wonder
most rich Athenians hated the system.
Again, you are mistaken. I am getting tired of correcting you.FoxNews drug their heels
when it came to supporting DJT in 2015 until it was clear that the majority of
conservatives actually wanted DJT as their candidate.
It was at that point that business-smartz kicked in and they had to acknowledge that
they must throw their weight behind the Trump ticket lest they prove themselves the
faux-conservative Rinos they actually were/are.
Business 101, my friend. You wanna keep the advert. revenue coming in, you produce
content your audience actually agrees with.
TBH and AFAIK Tucker Carlson is still the only truly sane conservative on FOx news. The
rest, including Hannity, don't neccessarily mind the endless wars so long as the public
endorses them. They are chameleons without an ethical lodestar guiding their
commentary.
Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying
blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics,
_____________________________________________
The problem is you think the oligarchs are every bit as stupid as you are. It would be
nice if they were, but unfortunately they're not.
First of all lets examine who are these deplorables who you imagine were set up by the
oligarchs to be crushed and demoralized by running Trump as their candidate.
The deplorables are:
-The Americans that own the guns
-The Bible thumping American jihadist
-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the
states weaponry
-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of
tyrants
I could go on but all you have to do is tune into the corporate mass media that caters
to the deplorables to find out who they are and what they are being sold.
But Mr Gruff is just too stupid to figure out why in the world the oligarchs might want
to not antagonize that segment of the population.
The oligarchs would have to have lost their frikken minds to hire trump for the purpose
of giving the deplorables a big "fuck you" as you imagine. The oligarchs are well aware
that they already gave a big fat finger to the deplorables when they engineered the
election of Obama (not to mention the 40 preceding years of marginalizing that segment of
the population) and just maybe it was time to pacify that segment of the population that
was growing larger and a bit restless.
But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a
better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap
themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of
huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to
them.
Amen!!! I don't think that people who forward that narrative fully understand
how damaging this exposure has been to them.
By being exposed they have been shown to exist . This is super critical! No more
is talk of the deep state relegated to the lunatic fringe where they can be easily derided
as "conspiracy theorists"
Whether Trump can drain the swamp or not is to be seen but what is not in dispute is
that they exist.
Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 18:31 utc |
181 How can the blob "return" when they never really left?
To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep
state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must
be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was
trying so hard.
The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless
efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the
likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up
ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time.
It's avoidance of those lower probability mega catastrophes that is the principle reason
of voting trump out with regards to foreign policy. And there are other reasons.
We all like to have our worldview affirmed by a corroborating voice, even if that, too, is
an opinion. This, for me, was like lying back in a hot bath.
I have said as far back as I can remember, during Pompeo's tenure as Giant Blasphemous
Cream Puff of State, that the damage he was doing to the relationship between America and her
allies was significant and perhaps irreparable. The article, if accurate, reveals a China
which is quite a bit like Russia in its official treatment of minorities – subordinate
ethnicities are recognized as distinct societies if their population meets a reasonable
threshold, and where an ethnic population is regionally dominant, an autonomous government is
established to facilitate local governance by people of the same ethnic background.
I was not aware that during the term of China's one-child policy – a dreadful time
which led to the abortion or other more-horrible disposals of unwanted baby girls –
mothers among ethnic minorities were permitted two or even three children.
The article is obviously written in defense of China, but the authors seem to have
substantiated their claims satisfactorily where such material is offered. Unsubstantiated
opinion is often a close match with those offered by commenters on this forum.
George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister
Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with
Pompeosity!
I swear I saw the Pompous One deflate considerably after Plenkovic's speech about China's
BRI initiative. Good thing the wind was up and active otherwise the smell would have been
horrific and everyone would have been knocked unconscious.
"... Well, according to new memos belatedly released to Just the News's John Solomon , under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Yovanovitch wrote top officials in Washington that she feared Burisma Holdings had made a second bribe to Ukrainian officials around the time a corruption probe against Hunter Biden's natural gas employer was closed before Donald Trump took office. ..."
"... Of course, this is all in addition to previous memos that revealed Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign directed at the US State Department throughout the 2016 US election, with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to lean on Kiev to drop corruption allegations. ..."
"... You decide : The Vice-President's son on the board of a foreign energy entity that was implicate not once, but twice, in alleged bribery schemes? Big deal? or "not a big deal"? ..."
Always
glowing in her Schiff-protected bubble of virtue-signaling safety, former Ukraine
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch told Congress that she knew little about Burisma Holdings and the
long-running corruption probe against the company now so infamously linked to Joe Biden's son
Hunter, specifically testifying under oath, "It just wasn't a big deal."
Well,
according to new memos belatedly released to Just the News's John Solomon , under a Freedom
of Information Act lawsuit against the State Department, Yovanovitch wrote top officials in
Washington that she feared Burisma Holdings had made a second bribe to Ukrainian officials
around the time a corruption probe against Hunter Biden's natural gas employer was closed
before Donald Trump took office.
Then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's concerns were first raised in a Ukrainian news story
about a Russian-backed fugitive lawmaker in Ukraine, who alleged Burisma had dumped
low-priced natural gas into the market for officials near Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko to buy low and sell high, making a bribe disguised as a profit.
The scheme was confirmed by U.S. officials before Yovanovitch alerted the top State
official for Ukraine and Russia policy in Washington at the time, Assistant Secretary of
State Victoria Nuland, the memos show.
"There are accusations that Burisma allegedly had a subsidiary dump natural gas as a way
to pay bribes," Yovanovitch wrote Nuland on Dec. 29, 2016, noting the story "mentions that
Hunter Biden and former Polish President Kwasniewski are on the Burisma Board."
The alert was the second in two years in which the embassy alleged Burisma had paid a
bribe while Vice President Joe Biden's son served on its board.
Back in February 2015, then-embassy official George Kent reported to the U.S. Justice
Department evidence that Burisma had made a $7 million cash bribe to Ukrainian prosecutors
before those prosecutors killed a separate corruption probe in the United Kingdom by
failing to produce required evidence.
This was after Trump's election win and just 22 days before President Obama left office.
Of course,
this is all in addition to previous memos that revealed Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma
conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign directed at the US State Department throughout the
2016 US election, with the goal of pressuring the Obama administration to lean on Kiev to drop
corruption allegations.
You decide : The Vice-President's son on the board of a foreign energy entity that was
implicate not once, but twice, in alleged bribery schemes? Big deal? or "not a big deal"?
Probably counting on the desperate vanity and ego of Trump with the looming election to not
shorten the length of the leash on Pompass. Pompass must also have noticed that Trump is
willing to shove the homeland into civil war in order to claim victory, so maybe Pompass
finally has the latitude to slake his bloodthirstiness.
Since I'm wondering down the path of speculation, a bit further into the murk. If there is
one thing that characterizes the US today from the highest to the low, it is corruption. I
submit that this corruption finds its zenith in the military, and especially the procurement
train: any engagement with a near-peer (or the coalition/bloc we're talking about here,) and
the rot and corruption will collapse this empire in upon itself. I've had this suspicion for
some time, and believe if the going got rough the collapse would come rather quickly and
completely.
"... There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive) while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time! ..."
Speaking as an Independent, I say that our country, the USA, has engineered past confilcts and wars in order to feed the military
industrial complex. Not so much that it results in a nuke-shooting war, but in a regular non-nuke shooting war. The solution?
Send the sons and daughters of the politicians into direct combat, every time they approve another war. That should keep things
a bit more peaceful.
Professor Cohen is this nation's most objective and therefore most valuable thinker on Russia! The charge that his views are
"not patriotic" is a compliment rather than the insult they intended. A scholar's views are only valuable to the public and, more
importantly, policy makers, if they are OBJECTIVE!!! Which is to say that he follows the FACTS wherever they lead!
Any "discussion" with no mention of the supranational central bank cartel is intentional deceptive omission. The "brass ring"
is forced use of petro-dollars. The central bank stock holders and bankers loaning all dollars into existence as national debt,
do not care who owns land. They care who pays off national debts and interest on debt. Civil war is their racket. There are no
sovereign nations. No genuine nations that create their medium of exchange publicly. No national people. Just participants in
an extortion or its victims. The "Elite" collect on money they created as loans in their central banking accounts. All others
are only human numbers assigned billing addresses.
Welcome to the New World Order ....where Multinational corporations rule & their profits are what are most important..... NOT
nation states it's the 99.9% against the .01% and they use MSM propaganda & fear to control the DUMB masses thinking
I just discovered John Batchelor Show on which Cohen has a guest spot- I just was drawn to this man's thinking, probably because
I had made up my mind about Russia during the Ukraine crises. Seeing the US has ruin every country we have gone into- I'm on Russia's
side, especially where Russia and Ukraine has a history, on that side of the world.
38:49 - Apologies for the somewhat Utopian
question here. I agree with everything Cohen has said, but regarding cause of jihadist terrorism ( ie implosion of the economies
in the region), does it make sense to discuss primarily this game of terrorist whack a mole (bombing, invading and crushing Jihadist
insurgencies)? Is there any point in talking about a pro active policy of recreating sustainable, stable economies in the region?
What would that even look like?
Not very many average Americans would be able to easily access and watch this. Average Americans still consume mainly mainstream
media. Too bad, because this lecture would have opened their eyes and have blown up their brain-contaminated minds by the CNN,
the New York Times and alike.
I agree wholeheartedly Loane. Have always been extremely impressed with and appreciative of Cohen's carefully & thoughtfully
considered contribution. We in the US have gone a bit off the deep end when it comes to this deeply embedded belief in exceptionalism
and superiority, and have been extremely rude to much of the rest of the world in the process. It amazes me how patient Russia
has been with us, waiting for us to come around to a more sober understanding of the world we live in today. I have to conclude
that what we are experiencing here in the US is a perennial phenomenon that comes with the end of all empires throughout history,
the mission creep of over-extending resources and the big one, seemingly blind hubris.
There is no chance of mending relations and even less of achieving some security partnership between US and Russia. The rift
will only keep on widening as US political and financial elites are growing increasingly desperate (and thus even more aggressive)
while Russia abandons its attempts to please the haters and moves its focus on to its future prospective partners who have genuine
interest in cooperating with Russia and achieving common goals.... including opposing the common enemy if you like! Well at least
I hope so: the only reason why US wish to get closer to Russia would be to stab it in the back... one more time!
NATO'S reason to exist ended when the Warsaw Pact was demolished. It was created to confront the socialist Warsaw Pact but
today ALL of the members of the pact are part of NATO, except Russia. So why is it still operating? Who are they confronting?
They are a bunch of bureaucrats looking for a reason to stay employed in an organization that lost its excuse to be. However,
their behavior has gone from increasing security to actually becoming a menace to trigger a nuclear war to destroy life on earth.
It will take a Republican President to turn our relationships with hostile nations around. For some irrational reasoning, the
current administration refuses negotiation with it's enemies. Somehow this is going to create understanding. and a less dangerous
world. I don't see a continuation of this Administrations policy anything but reckless . I am assuming this policy has been one
determined through Clinton, and will remain so. Clinton has said on a number of occasions, it is the Obama Administration's policies
that will be hers as well. As an ex cold warrior, who has spent a lot of time chasing Soviet boomers in the North Atlantic, I
am not willing to gamble my children and grand children's lives . It is a dangerous and ego driven pissing match. Let us start
talking , This administration and families can climb into their luxury nuclear bomb proof bunkers...... My family and most Americans
don't have that luxury.
Dr. Cohen, so Putin gave the Northern Alliance to the USA after 911 to bludgeon Afghanistan for hiding Bin Laden? Paul Craig
Robert, David Ray Griffin and a growing list of Americans believe 911 was a total bamboozle. If that is true which it looks increasingly
like it was, does that mean Putin was playing along with the our Reichstag fire? What does that make Putin? NATO should have been
totally remade after 1986, but it wasn't and we simply missed a huge opportunity not for worldwide U.S. hegemony, but for a new
umbrella of security by super powers in alliance. Obviously, the proliferation of ethno-religious groups was in Putin's mind when
he welcomed us into Afghanistan, but damn it man, tell people EXACTLY why we and the Russians want to be in the Golden Crescent
besides the extraction of minerals.
Julia Ioffe is a joke -- she is essentially a typical "national security parasite" and of the level that surprisingly, is
lower that Max Boor, although previously I thought this is impossible. Julia Ioffe is very typical of the anti-Russian thinking
in the West.
This incessant Russophobia constantly being trumpeted by the Washington militarist imperialists must stop. It's putting the
world on the brink of nuclear war.
Stephen Cohen's a godsend along with a handful of the other intellectuals out there speaking and writing the truth that penetrates
the miasma of disinformation, half-truths and exaggerations emanating from the state-corporate nexus in the American mass media.
Cohen, along with John Pilger, James Petras, Robert Parry, Michael Parenti, John Pilger, Eva Bartlett, Diana Johnstone and
Paul Craig Roberts must be read widely in order for folks to get a grasp of where the Washington imperialist ruling class is driving
the world.
at 25:40 he just destroys her totally. what
a point he made, amazing!! "thank you professor" the guy on the left wants to end Cohen's carnage of the so called experts. Cohen
made minced meat out of em. Fact after fact...stonewalled em both. Listen to her, ISIS doesn't have nuke's, she obviously doesn't
have a clue.
Cohen is always cogent and convincing. One area I wish some historian would look into is how "Russia-gate" is not echoing Cold
War themes, but echoing themes from the German Nazis in particular their belief about a great Jewish conspiracy against Europe.
Even Putin recently remarked on all these accusations: "It reminds me of anti-Semitism, A dumb man who can't do anything would
blame the Jews for everything." Look at how Putin is drawn and pictured on major outlets. The NYTimes blamed resistance to TPP
on Putin.
The Russians like the Jews are behind every social problem. Popular culture shows and speaks of Russia in the same way Nazi
propagandists wrote about Russia.
Undermining Western liberal democracies, Jews were compared to spiders catching people in the webs. Same with Putin. Pick up
Hitler's speech after the invasion of the Soviet Union justifying it., Echos? Accidental rhetoric of conspiracies ?
"to look past a long list of transgressions and abuses..." this is what I absolutely hate about America, they are all so stupid
and ignorant to their own countries misdeeds it is unbelievable, infuriating beyond belief. The US is currently fighting 7 wars
simultaneously, which it all started itself under false pretences and hid the real reason beneath a thick layer of BS propaganda
and misinformation.
The secession of Crimea is the least egregious event of the entire conflicts history. The EU and US have pumped billions of
dollars into the coup which took place weeks before the Crimean referendum, on the 20th of February 2014, 2 weeks prior to that,
an intercepted phone conversation between Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State of the United States to Europe) and Geoffrey
Pyatt (US Ambassador to the Ukraine) was leaked on February 4th, 2014. In this phone conversation, they describe key positions
within the Ukrainian government being filled by Klitshko and Yatz... fast forward a few weeks, who do we see? Klitsh and Yatz!
It was the most obvious sponsored coup in history.
Putin snatched the Crimean peninsula from NATO, who wanted to seize Russias military harbour in Sevastopol (which the Russians
have used to supply Syria, this was one and a half years before they entered the conflict directly, apart from being a very important
strategic harbour in general), by suggesting a referendum to the local government and they accepted.
Why? Because they were ethnic Russians and knew who gained power in Kiev, the neo-Nazi, Bandera-worshipping OUN, which the
US has nourished, supported and developed for the last 100 years within the Ukrainian territory. These Nazis hate Russians, they
have a deep seeded hatred of all things Russian which has been indoctrinated and drilled into them by the CIA for decades, the
first thing they did after seizing power was to demote the Russian language from the official list of languages of the Ukraine.
They have since honoured Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators from WWII by erecting statues, renaming streets, creating new holidays
etc. This is just one example of US misinformation and propaganda, nothing they say accurately describes the truth, nothing, not
one thing has it's bases in reality. Be it about Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and what have you, it's all lies and propaganda
to mask their intentions.
North Korea is another example. North Korea is a hornets nest they kick once in a while to scare the Japanese and South Koreans
into tolerating US occupation longer. Everything North Korea does is a direct response to threats and intimidations by the US.
They staged a drill off the coast of North Korea which they called "Decapitation" for F's sake.
They have ratcheted up the tension again these past few months to sneak in their THAAD weapons stations, before the new President
was chosen. And these THAAD systems have absolutely nothing to do with North Korea, it's against China and Russia, North Korea
is a pretext.
The still active war, which has merely been under a seize fire for decades, against North Korea, could have been ended before
there was colour television, but the US needs North Korea to exist in order to justify their occupation of S.Korea and Japan.
And by the way, the CrowdStrike guy testified in 2017 that there was ZERO PROOF that the Russians hacked the DNC, but Schiff
hid that for 2 years until John Ratcliff threatened to declassify it, then Schiff's sorry ass released the interviews. So, this
man was 100 percent right, there is ZERO PROOF the Russians or anyone hacked the DNC. Its a damned lie, and it was always a lie.
As usual, the journalists and leftist have nothing to offer- no facts, no forensic evidence, no truth. Only speculation hyperbole
and hysteria. I don't believe Russia are the good guys but give me a break in all this crap!
why did cohen tell everyone even potential 'terrorists' that there is too much of exactly what 'terrorists' wish to get their
hands on in the former soviet states?!!? if he is 'so afraid' of 'terrorism...' WHY did he say THAT?!!? not very bright... or
perhaps he is FOS. idk?! wth?! SMH. maybe e is trying to inform people who r not 'terrorists,' so that people know n can figure
out how to address the issues...?
Yet, for any terrorists who wanted to know how to get materials he spoke of, now they may know a region where they could potentially
go to attain the materials... maybe in 'terrorists' circles they all know this already? it just seems concerning, is all...
Beth Lemmon, 2 years ago (edited)
Love Stephen Cohen, he is spot on and right about most if not all points, he's fair, wicked smart and sober minded. However
he isn't right about POTUS Trump. If anyone has been watching this type of discourse about world geopolitics it looks like the
NWO wants wars to depopulate the earth, set up a OWG and a utopia. It's so blatantly obvious to those who are honest and not ideologically
possessed.
They recruit their stupid Antifa army and zombie possessed minions to do their dirty work in the streets. They want send our
amazing military to do the fighting wars that are just to feed the MIC, and does nothing for America's good.
Crisis of neoliberal undermines the USA supremacy and the US elite hangs by the stras to the Full Specturm Domionanc edoctrine,
whih it now can't enforce and which is financially unsustainable for the USA.
Collapse of neoliberalism means the end of the USA supremacy and the whole political existence on the USA was banked on this
single card.
Notable quotes:
"... In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential," bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily. ..."
"... In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands, we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well. ..."
"... There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic opposition to communism. ..."
"... Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism. ..."
The international order is no longer bipolar, despite the elites' insistence otherwise.
Fortunately there is hope for change.
Despite its many failings and high human, social, and economic costs, American foreign
policy since the end of the Second World War has shown a remarkable degree of continuity and
inflexibility. This rather curious phenomenon is not limited to America alone. The North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment from Washington D.C. to London, which some have aptly
dubbed the "blob," has doggedly championed the grand strategic framework of "primacy" and armed
hegemony, often coated with more docile language such as "global leadership," "American
indispensability," and "strengthening the Western alliance."
In America, this unfortunate status quo in support of primacy persists even in the Trumpian
Age and within debates around the eccentric and unconventional presidency of Donald Trump. In
fact, despite all the talk of political polarization in the United States, it appears that when
it comes to naming new threats and enemies to "contain," "deter," and deem "existential,"
bipartisan consensus is found swiftly and quite readily.
On the Left, and in the wake of
President Trump's election, the Democratic establishment began fixating its wrath on
Russia–adopting a confrontational stance toward Moscow and fueling fears of a renewed
Cold War. On the Right, the realigning GOP has increasingly, if at times inconsistently,
singled out China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security, a hostile attitude further
exacerbated in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alarmingly, Joe Biden, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has recently joined the hawkish bandwagon toward China, even attempting
to outflank Trump on this issue and attacking the president's China policy as too weak and
accommodating of China's rise.
In a recent speech delivered in Europe, the U.S. defense secretary and former corporate
lobbyist for Raytheon, Mark Esper, unified these two faces of the Janus that embodies the North
Atlantic foreign policy establishment. Esper referred to both China and Russia as disruptive
forces working to unravel the international order, which "we have created together," and called
on the international community to preserve that order by countering both powers. As it stands,
we are on the path to a series of cold wars throughout this century, if not a hot conflict
between rival great powers that could spiral into World War III. Despite increased calls for
realism and restraint in foreign policy, primacy is alive and well.
Indeed, the dominant tendency among many foreign policy observers is to overprivilege the
threat of rising superpowers and to insist on strong containment measures to limit the spheres
of influence of the so-called revisionist powers. Such an approach, coupled with the prospect
of ascendant powers actively resisting and confronting the United States as the ruling global
hegemon, has one eminent International Relations scholar warning of the Thucydides Trap.
There are others, however, who insist that the structural shifts undermining the liberal
international order mark the end of U.S. hegemony and its "unipolar moment." In realist terms,
what Secretary Esper really means to protect, they would argue, is a conception of
"rules-based" global order that was a structural by-product of the Second World War and the
ensuing Cold War and whose very rules and institutions were underwritten by U.S. hegemony. This
would be an exercise in folly -- not corresponding to the reality of systemic change and the
return of great power competition and civilizational contestation.
What's more, the sanctimony of this "liberal" hegemonic order and the logic of democratic
peace were both presumably vindicated by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its totalitarian
system, a black swan event that for many had heralded the "end of history" and promised the
advent of the American century. A great deal of lives, capital, resources, and goodwill were
sacrificed by America and her allies toward that crusade for liberty and universality, which
was only the most recent iteration of a radically utopian element in American political thought
going back to Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. Alas, as it had eluded earlier generations of
idealists, that century never truly arrived, and neither did the empire of liberty and
prosperity that it loftily aimed to establish.
Today, the emerging reality of a multipolar world and alternate worldviews championed by the
different cultural blocs led by China and Russia appears to have finally burst the bubble of
American Triumphalism, proving that the ideas behind it are "not simply obsolete but absurd."
This failure should have been expected since the very project the idealists had espoused was
built on a pathological "savior complex" and a false truism that reflected the West's own
absolutist and distorted sense of ideological and moral superiority. Samuel Huntington might
have been right all along to cast doubt on the long-term salience of using ideology and
doctrinal universalism as the dividing principle for international relations. His call to
focus, instead, on civilizational distinction, the permanent power of culture on human action,
and the need to find common ground rings especially true today. Indeed, fostering a spirit of
coexistence and open dialogue among the world's great civilizational complexes is a fundamental
tenet of a cultural realism.
And yet, despite such permanent shifts in the global order away from universalist
dichotomies and global hegemony and toward culturalism and multi-polarity, there exists a
profound disjunction between the structural realities of the international system and the often
business-as-usual attitude of the North Atlantic foreign policy elites. How could one explain
the astonishing levels of rigidity and continuity on the part of the "blob" and the
military-industrial-congressional complex regularly pushing for more adventurism and
interventionism abroad? Why would the bipartisan primacist establishment, which their allies in
the mainstream media endeavor still to mask, justify such illiberal acts of aggression and
attempts at empire by weaponizing the moralistic language of human rights, individual liberty,
and democracy in a world increasingly awakened to arbitrary ideological framing?
There are, of course, systemic reasons behind the power and perpetuation of the blob and the
endurance of primacy. The vast economic incentives of war and its instruments, institutional
routinization and intransigence, stupefaction and groupthink of government bureaucracy, and the
significant influence of lobbying efforts by foreign governments and other vested interest
groups could each partly explain the remarkable continuity of the North Atlantic foreign policy
establishment. The endless stream of funding from the defense industry, neoliberal and
neoconservative foundations, as well as the government itself keeps the "blob" alive, while the
general penchant for bipartisanship around preserving the status quo allows it to thrive. What
is more, elite schools produce highly analytic yet narrowly focused and conventional minds that
are tamed to be agreeable so as to not undermine elite consensus. This conveyor belt feeds the
"blob," supplying it with the army of specialists, experts, and wonks it requires to function
as a mind melding hive, while in practice safeguarding employment for the career bureaucrats
for decades to come.
There is, however, a more significant psychosociological reason for the blob's remarkable
persistence. When it comes to foreign policy, Western policymakers today suffer from a
Manichean worldview, a caustic mindset crystalized during a decades-running Cold War with the
Soviet Union. The world might have changed fundamentally with the fall of the Berlin Wall in
1989, the bipolar structure of the international system might have ended irreversibly, but the
personnel -- the Baby Boomer Generation elites conducting foreign policy in the North Atlantic
-- did not leave office or retire with the collapse of the USSR. They largely remain in power
to this day.
Every generation is forged through a formative crisis, its experiences seen through the
prism that all-encompassing ordeal. For the incumbent elites, that generational crisis was the
Cold War and the omnipresent threat of nuclear annihilation. The dualistic paradigm of the
international system during the U.S.-Soviet rivalry bred an entire generation to see the world
through a black-and-white binary. It should come as no surprise that this era elevated the
idealist strain of thought and the crusading, neo-Jacobin impulse of U.S. foreign policy
(personified by Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson) to new, ever-expanding heights. Idealism
prizes a nemesis and thus revels in a bipolar order.
Frozen in this Cold War mindset, the Atlanticist blob has internalized the bipolar moment
that followed the Second World War, treating it as a permanent fixture and the normal state of
the international system. In fact, the bipolar and unipolar periods we have undergone over the
past 75 years are nothing but aberrations and historical anomalies. In truth, the reality of
the international system tends toward multi-polarity -- and at long last it appears that the
system is self-correcting. The North Atlantic establishment came of age during that time of
exception, forming its (liberal) identity through the process of "alterity" and in a nemetic
opposition to communism.
Not surprisingly then, the North Atlantic elites continue to seek adversaries to demonize
and "monsters to destroy" in order to justify their moral universalism and presumed ideological
superiority, doing so under the garb of a totalizing and absolutist idea of exceptionalism.
After all, a nemetic zeitgeist during which ideology reigned supreme and realism was routinely
discounted was tailor-made for dogmatic absolutism and moral universalism. In such a zero-sum
strategic environment, it was only natural to demand totality and frame the ongoing
geopolitical struggle in terms of an existential opposition over Good and Evil that would quite
literally split the world in two.
Today, that same kind of Manichean thinking continues to handicap paradigmatic change in
foreign policy. A false consciousness, it underpins and promotes belief in the double myths of
indispensability and absolute exceptionality, suggesting that the North Atlantic bloc holds a
certain monopoly on all that is good and true. It is not by chance that such pathological
renderings of "exceptionalism" and "leadership" have been wielded as convenient rationale and
intellectual placeholders for the ideology of empire across the North Atlantic. This sense of
ingrained moral self-righteousness, coupled with an attitude that celebrates activism,
utopianism, and interventionism in foreign policy, has created and reinforced a culture of
strategic overextension and imperial overreach.
It is this very culture -- personified and dominated by the Baby Boomers and the blob they
birthed -- that has made hawkishness ubiquitous, avoids any real reckoning as to the limits of
power, and habitually belittles calls for restraint and moderation as isolationism. In truth,
however, what has been the exceptional part in the delusion of absolute exceptionalism is Pax
Americana, liberal hegemony, and the hubris that animates them having gone uncontested and
unchecked for so long. That confrontation could begin in earnest by directly challenging the
Boomer blob itself -- and by propagating a counter-elite offering a starkly different
worldview.
Achieving such a genuine paradigm shift demands a generational sea-change, to retire the old
blob and make a better one in its place. It is about time for the old establishment to forgo
its reign, allowing a new younger cohort from among the Millennial and post-Millennial
generations to advance into leadership roles. The Millennials, especially, are now the largest
generation of eligible voters (overtaking the Baby Boomers) as well as the first generation not
habituated by the Cold War; in fact, many of them grew up during the "unipolar moment" of
American hegemony. Hence, their generational identity is not built around a dualistic alterity.
Free from obsessive fixation on ideological supremacy, most among them reject total global
dominance as both unattainable and undesirable.
Instead, their worldview is shaped by an entirely different set of experiences and
disappointments. Their generational crisis was brought on by a series of catastrophic
interventions and endless wars around the world -- chief among them the debacles in Afghanistan
and Iraq and the toppling of Libya's Gaddafi -- punctuated by repeated onslaughts of financial
recessions and domestic strife. The atmosphere of uncertainty, instability, and general chaos
has bred discontent, turning many Millennials into pragmatic realists who are disenchanted with
the system, critical of the pontificating establishment, and naturally skeptical of lofty
ideals and utopian doctrines.
In short, this is not an absolutist and complacent generation of idealists, but one steeped
in realism and a certain perspectivism that has internalized the inherent relativity of both
power and truth. Most witnessed the dangers of overreach, hubris, and a moralized foreign
policy, so they are actively self-reflective, circumspect, and restrained. As a generation,
they appear to be less the moralist and the global activist and more prudent, level-headed, and
temperamentally conservative -- developing a keen appreciation for realpolitik, sovereignty,
and national interest. Their preference for a non-ideological approach in foreign policy
suggests that once in power, they will be less antagonistic and more tolerant of rival powers
and accepting of pluralism in the international system. That openness to civilizational
distinction and global cultural pluralism also implies that future Millennial statesmen will
subscribe to a more humble, less grandiose, and narrower definition of interest that focuses on
securing core objectives -- i.e., preserving national security and recognizing spheres of
influence.
Reforming and rehabilitating the U.S. foreign policy establishment will require more than
policy prescriptions and comprehensive reports: it needs generational change. To transform and
finally "rein in" North Atlantic foreign policy, our task today must be to facilitate and
expedite this shift. Once that occurs, the incoming Millennials should be better positioned to
discard the deep-seated and routinized ideology of empire, supplanting it with a greater
emphasis on partnership that is driven by mutual interests and a general commitment to sharing
the globe with the world's other great cultures.
This new approach calls for America to lead by the power of its example, exhibiting the
benefits of liberty and a constitutional republic at home, without forcibly imposing those
values abroad. Such an outlook means abandoning the coercive regime change agendas and the
corrosive projects of nation-building and democracy promotion. In this new multipolar world,
America would be an able, dynamic, and equal participant in ensuring sustainable peace
side-by-side the world's other great powers, acting as "a normal country in a normal time."
Reflecting the spirit of republican governance authentically is far more pertinent now and
salutary for the future of the North Atlantic peoples than is promulgating the utopian image of
a shining city on a hill.
Arta Moeini is research director at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy and a postdoc
fellow at the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. Dr. Moeini's latest project advances a
theory of cultural realism as a cornerstone to a new understanding of foreign policy.
The Institute for Peace and Diplomacy will be co-sponsoring "The Future of Grand Strategy
in the Post-COVID World," with TAC, tonight at 6 p.m. ET. Register for free here
.
This is all about maintaining the US-centered global neoliberal empire. After empires is created the the USA became the
salve of imperial interests and in a way stopped existing as an independent country. Everything is thrown on the altar of "full
spectrum Dominance". The result is as close to a real political and economic disaster as we can get. Like USSR leadership the US
elite realized now that neoliberalism is not sustainable, but can't do anything as all bets were made for the final victory of
neoliberalism all over the world, much like Soviets hoped for the victory of communism. That did not happened and although the USA
now is in much better position then the USSR in 60th (but with the similar level of deterioration of cognitive abilities of the
politicians as the USSR). In this sense COVID-19 was a powerful catalyst of the crush of the US-centered neoliberal empire
Notable quotes:
"... On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy." ..."
"... Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake. Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption, torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic revolutionaries, to America's horror. ..."
"... The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would be threatening war. ..."
"... In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments" – the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation. ..."
Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama's deputy national security adviser, unkindly characterized the
foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C., as "the Blob." Although policymakers
sometimes disagree on peripheral subjects, membership requires an absolute commitment to U.S.
"leadership," which means a determination to micro-manage the world.
Reliance on persuasion is not enough. Vital is the willingness to bomb, invade, and, if
necessary, occupy other nations to impose the Blob's dictates on other peoples. If foreigners
die, as they often do, remember the saying about eggs and omelets oft repeated by communism's
apologists. "Stuff happens" with the best-intentioned policies.
One might be inclined to forgive Blob members if their misguided activism actually benefited
the American people. However, all too often the Blob's policies instead aid other governments
and interests. Washington is overrun by the representatives of and lobbyists for other nations,
which constantly seek to take control of US policy for their own advantage. The result are
foreign interventions in which Americans do the paying and, all too often, the dying for
others.
The problem is primarily one of power. Other governments don't spend a lot of time
attempting to take over Montenegro's foreign policy because, well, who cares? Exactly what
would you do after taking over Fiji's foreign ministry other than enjoy a permanent vacation?
Seize control of international relations in Barbados and you might gain a great tax
shelter.
Subvert American democracy and manipulate US foreign policy, and you can loot America's
treasury, turn the US military into your personal bodyguard, and gain Washington's support for
reckless war-mongering. And given the natural inclination of key American policymakers to
intervene promiscuously abroad for the most frivolous reasons, it's surprisingly easy for
foreign interests to convince Uncle Sam that their causes are somehow "vital" and therefore
require America's attention. Indeed, it is usually easier to persuade Americans than foreign
peoples in their home countries to back one or another international misadventure.
The culprits are not just autocratic regimes. Friendly democratic governments are equally
ready to conspiratorially whisper in Uncle Sam's ear. Even nominally classical liberal
officials, who believe in limiting their own governments, argue that Americans are obligated to
sacrifice wealth and life for everyone else. The mantra seems to be liberty, prosperity, and
peace for all – except those living in the superpower tasked by heaven with protecting
everyone else's liberty, prosperity, and peace.
Although the problem has burgeoned in modern times, it is not new. Two centuries ago fans of
Greek independence wanted Americans to challenge the Ottoman Empire, a fantastic bit of
foolishness. Exactly how to effect an international Balkans rescue was not clear, since the
president then commanded no aircraft carriers, air wings, or nuclear-tipped missiles. Still,
the issue divided Americans and influenced John Quincy Adams' famous 1821 Independence Day
address.
Warned Adams:
"Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there
will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of
monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the
champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance
of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting
under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would
involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of
individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of
freedom."
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She
might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit .
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a
spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has
been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of
mankind would permit, her practice."
Powerful words, yet Adams was merely following in the footsteps of another great American,
George Washington. Obviously, the latter was flawed as a person, general, and president.
Nevertheless, his willingness to set a critical precedent by walking away from power left an
extraordinary legacy. As did his insistence that the Constitution tasked Congress with deciding
when America would go to war. And his warning against turning US policy over to foreign
influences.
Concern over obsequious subservience to other governments and interests pervaded his famous
1796 Farewell Address. Applied today, his message indicts most of the policy currently made in
the city ironically named after him. He would be appalled by what presidents and Congresses
today do, supposedly for America.
Obviously, the US was very different 224 years ago. The new country was fragile, sharing the
Western hemisphere with its old colonial master, which still ruled Canada and much of the
Caribbean, as well as Spain and France. When later dragged into the maritime fringes of the
Napoleonic wars the US could huff and puff but do no more than inconvenience France and
Britain. The vastness of the American continent, not overweening national power, again
frustrated London when it sought to subjugate its former colonists.
Indeed, when George Washington spoke the disparate states were not yet firmly knit into a
nation. Only after the Civil War, when the national government waged four years of brutal
combat, which ravaged much of the country and killed upwards of 750,000 people in the name of
"union," did people uniformly say the United States "is" rather than "are." However, the
transformation was much more than rhetorical. The federal system that originally emerged in the
name of individual liberty spawned a high tax centralized government that employed one of the
world's largest militaries to kill on a mass scale to enforce the regime's dictates. The modern
American "republic" was born. It acted overseas only inconsistently until World War II, after
which imperial America was a constant, adding resonance to George Washington's message.
Today Washington, D.C.'s elites have almost uniformly decided that Russia is an enemy,
irrespective of American behavior that contributed to Moscow's hostility. And that Ukraine, a
country never important for American security, is a de facto military ally, appropriately armed
by the US for combat against a nuclear-armed rival. A reelection-minded president seems
determined to turn China into a new Cold War adversary, an enemy for all things perhaps for all
time. America remains ever entangled in the Middle East, with successive administrations in
permanent thrall of Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing foreign leaders to set US Mideast policy.
Indeed, both states have avidly pressed the administration to make their enemy, Iran, America'
enemy. The resulting fixation caused the Trump administration to launch economic war against
the rest of the world to essentially prevent everyone on earth from having any commercial
dealing of any kind with anyone in Tehran.
Under Democrats and Republicans alike the federal government views nations that resist its
dictates as adversaries at best, appropriate targets of criticism, always, sanctions, often,
and even bombs and invasions, occasionally. No wonder foreign governments lobby hard to be
designated as allies, partners, and special relationships. Many of these ties have become
essentially permanent, unshakeable even when supposed friends act like enemies and supposed
enemies are incapable of hurting America. US foreign policy increasingly has been captured and
manipulated for the benefit of other governments and interests.
George Washington recognized the problem even in his day, after revolutionary France sought
to win America's support against Great Britain. He warned: "nothing is more essential than that
permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for
others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all
should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual
fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either
of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Is there a better description of US foreign policy today? Even when a favored nation is
clearly, ostentatiously, murderously on the wrong side – consider Saudi Arabia's
unprovoked aggression against Yemen – many American policymakers refuse to allow a single
word of criticism to escape their lips. The US has indeed become "a slave," as George
Washington warned.
The consequences for the US and the world are highly negative. He observed that "likewise, a
passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the
favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no
real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the
former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification."
This is an almost perfect description of the current US approach. American colonists
revolted against what they believed had become ever more "foreign" control, yet the US backs
Israel's occupation and mistreatment of millions of Palestinians. American policymakers parade
the globe spouting the rhetoric of freedom yet subsidize Egypt as it imprisons tens of
thousands and oppresses millions of people. Washington decries Chinese aggressiveness, yet
provides planes, munitions, and intelligence to aid Riyadh in the slaughter of Yemeni civilians
and destruction of Yemeni homes, businesses, and hospitals. In such cases, policymakers have
betrayed America "into a participation in the quarrels and wars without adequate inducement or
justification."
On the other side are the targets of "inveterate antipathies." This also characterizes US
Middle East policy. So hated are Iran and Syria that Washington, DC is making every effort to
destroy their economies, ruin their people's livelihoods, wreck their hospitals, and starve
their population. The respective governments are bad, to be sure, but do not threaten the US
Yet, as the nation's first president explained to Americans, "Antipathy in one nation against
another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of
umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute
occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation,
prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the
best calculations of policy."
Consider how close the US has come to foolish, unnecessary wars against both nations. There
were manifold demands that the US enter the Syrian civil war, in which Americans have no stake.
Short of combat the Obama administration indirectly aided the local affiliate of al-Qaeda, the
terrorist group which staged 9/11 and supposedly was America's enemy. Moreover, there was
constant pressure on America to attack Iran, targeted by the US since 1953, when the CIA helped
replace Tehran's democracy with a brutal tyrant, whose rule was highlighted by corruption,
torture, and a nuclear program – which then was taken over by Iran's Islamic
revolutionaries, to America's horror.
Read George Washington and you would think he had gained a supernatural glimpse into today's
policy debates. He worried about the result when the national government "adopts through
passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation
subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the
victim."
What better describes US policy toward China and Russia? To be sure, these are nasty
regimes. Yet that has rarely bothered Uncle Sam's relations with other states. Saudi Arabia, a
corrupt and totalitarian theocracy, has been sheltered, protected, and reassured by the US even
after invading its poor neighbor. Among Washington's other best friends: Bahrain, Turkey,
Egypt, and United Arab Emirates, tyrannies all.
The US now is pushing toward a Cold War redux with Russia, after successive administrations
treated Moscow as if it was of no account, lying about plans to expand NATO and acting in other
ways that the US would never tolerate. Imagine the Soviet Union helping to overthrow an
elected, pro-American government in Mexico City, seeking to redirect all commerce to Soviet
allies in South America, and proposing that Mexico join the Warsaw Pact. US policymakers would
be threatening war.
Washington, DC also is treating China as a near-enemy, claiming the right to control China
along its own borders – essentially attempting to apply America's Monroe Doctrine to
Asia. This is something Americans would never allow another nation, especially China, to do to
the US Imagine the response if Beijing sent its navy up the East Coast, told the US how to
treat Cuba, and constantly talked of the possibility of war. America's consistently hostile,
aggressive policy is the result of "projects of pride, ambition, and other sinister and
pernicious motives."
This kind of foreign policy also corrupts the American political system. It encourages
officials and people to put foreign interests before that of America. As George Washington
observed, this mindset: "gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote
themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; guiding, with the appearances of a
virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal
for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
For instance, Woodrow Wilson and America's Anglophile establishment backed Great Britain
over the interests of the American people, dragging the US into World War I, a mindless
imperial slugfest that this nation should have avoided. After the Cold War's end Americans with
ties to Central and Eastern Europe pushed to expand NATO to their ancestral homes, which
created new defense obligations for America while inflaming Russian hostility. Ethnic Greeks
and Turks constantly battle over policy toward their ethnic homelands. Taiwan has developed
enduring ties with congressional Republicans, especially, ensuring US government support
against Beijing. Many evangelical Christians, especially those who hold a particularly bizarre
eschatology (basically, Jews must gather together in their national homeland to be slaughtered
before Jesus can return), back Israel in whatever it does to assist the apparently helpless God
of creation finish his job. The policies that result from such campaigns inevitably are shaped
to benefit foreign interests, not Americans.
Regarding the impact of such a system on the political system George Washington also was
prescient: "As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are
particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities
do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead
public opinion, to influence or awe the public council. Such an attachment of a small or weak
towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter."
In different ways many US policies illustrate the problem caused by "passionate attachments"
– the almost routine and sometimes substantial sacrifice of US economic and security
interests to benefit other governments. For instance, hysteria swept Washington at the
president's recent proposal to simply reduce troop levels in Germany, which along with so many
other European nations sees little reason to do much to defend itself. There are even those who
demand American subservience to the Philippines, a semi-failed state of no significant security
importance to the US Saudi Arabia is a rare case where the attachment is mostly cash and
lobbyists. In most instances cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical ties provide a firmer
foundation for foreign political influence and manipulation.
What to do about such a long-standing problem? George Washington was neither naïf nor
isolationist. He believed in what passed for globalism in those days: a commercial republic
should trade widely. He didn't oppose alliances, for limited purposes and durations. After all,
support from France was necessary for the colonies to win independence.
He proposed a practical policy tied to ongoing realities. The authorities should "steer
clear of permanent alliances," have with other states "as little political connection as
possible," and not "entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils" of other nations'
"ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice." Most important, the object of US foreign
policy was to serve the interests of the American people. In practice it was a matter of
prudence, to be adapted to circumstance and interest. He would not necessarily foreclose
defense of Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Germany, but would insist that such proposals reflect a
serious analysis of current realities and be decided based on what is best for Americans. He
would recognize that what might have been true a few decades ago likely isn't true today. In
reality, little of current US foreign policy would have survived his critical review.
George Washington was an eminently practical man who managed to speak through the ages.
America's recently disastrous experience of playing officious, obnoxious hegemon highlights his
good judgment. The US, he argued, should "observe good faith and justice towards all nations;
cultivate peace and harmony with all."
America may still formally be a republic, but its foreign policy long ago became imperial.
As John Quincy Adams warned, the US is "no longer the ruler of her own spirit." Americans have
learned at great cost that international affairs are too important to be left to the Blob and
foreign policy professionals, handed off to international relations scholars, or, worst of all,
subcontracted to other nations and their lobbyists. The American people should insist on their
nation's return to a true republican foreign policy.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute . A former Special Assistant to President Ronald
Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .
There is not much "real" left in the the USA. Usually what we see is just different flavors
of far right and right.
Money quote: "Ah, for the good old days when lefties could be treated as a deluded minority rather than a vanguard party of
globalist imperialists. pl"
Notable quotes:
"... As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends. A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine’s Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a “targeted” assassination program." ..."
"... In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats (Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and by the angry Trumpists. ..."
"... Samantha Power is Irish bred and London born. She was schooled in Dublin till her mother emigrated to the US. Christiane Amanpour is British-Iranian. As far as I can determine she never has had US citizenship. ..."
"... WTF were they smoking when they decided to promote war to secure human rights??? So why did we let these halfwits in the country? ..."
"... Kerry seems is the perfect example of Democrats’ hypocritical ‘opposition’ to pointless and futile wars. Not that anybody remembers, but it was the liberal Bill Clinton who went to war in Yugoslavia and defanged the anti-war wing of the party. After Clinton Democrats only raised their voices against Republican wars and now have taken to criticizing Trump for not being belligerent enough!!! ..."
"... The same white men who stood three years ago Charlottesville to prevent the toppling of statues could be the backbone of a new anti-war movement ..."
"... The New York Times is not revolutionary, not by a very long shot. Neither are all the big corporations and foundations who've donated generously to the cause of BLM. ..."
"... America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of globalisation were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and conservative-nationalist options. ..."
"... The essential idea is that neither the non Trump wing of the American establishment (more properly Global establishment still anchored tenuously in DC) nor the Trump wing want the voters to discuss the economy - it's too hot a subject. ..."
"... Way too hot since the financial crisis of 2007-08 followed the working class jobs overseas and south of the border in the 90s and inequality exceeded that of the gilded age. No. But they will discuss racism (and gender). It divides the country further than ever, deflects focus on wealth disparity (the establishment has no intention of ever equalizing wealth even a bit) and presto - gives corporate America and media a new policing tool in the form of mandatory workshops and summary job dismissals even more unsubstantiated than many of those with #MeToo. It enhances the academic totalitarians of political correctness with corporate / employer totalitarianism of "learn your inclusivity lessons reeducation camp" or else. Unions disappeared long ago and now this. ..."
"... Yes the stupidity is ominous. They act as though there is no potential for repurcussion. It's very peculiar. ..."
As Johnstone recounts, after the Cold War liberals became bewitched by the prospect of waging wars for humanitarian ends.
A generation of journalists and foreign policy experts including Samantha Power, Christiane Amanpour, Jamie Rubin, and
Christopher Hitchens, would make the Balkans a proving ground for their liberal theories of preventative war, in the process
throwing the ancient and venerable tradition of St. Augustine’s Just War theory on the trash heap and paving the way for what
was to follow in the coming decades, including Iraq II, Libya, Syria and a global drone war and a “targeted” assassination
program."
This is a serious article addressing a serious problem. If the "left" sells out on war
issues as they have done the last 20 years or so, there is no pushback against the permanent
war system. Those one-time leftists who have sold out are no longer really leftists,
especially once they are relying on the corrupt permanent spy state for their information and
support.
Interesting and correct observation. Allow me to throw in my own two cents with regards to
the rise of what is defined as the "anti-Anti War left". I should note that there are eerily
similar parallels between the rise of the New Left in the 60s that was the mix of socialist
democrats, sexual revolutionaries, flower-power hippies, anti-imperialist/anti-war activists,
and identitarianists (Huey Netwon, Cesar Chavez, MLK) etc. and today's BLM, Antifa, 'woke'
types, third-gen feminists, broke millennials.
While the former's rise in the Democratic
Party led to the exodus of Neoconservatives (former Trotskyists, Socialist and Marxists) to
the Conservative movement, the latter is also moving the New Democrats to the Right, but the
problem is that the current Political Right is mostly controlled by the Trumpists so these
New Democrat types (Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff, Menendez, Biden etc.) are stuck between a hard
place and a rock.
In other words we are seeing the tight squeezing of the New Democrats
(Wall-Street, Tech, humanitarian intervention) by the radical left (Green New Deal, UBI) and
by the angry Trumpists.
Just to give you one example, last week a prototype New Democrat and long time congressman
(since 89) Elliot Engel of NY who fits well into this definition was defeated handily in the
NY-16 primaries by the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed candidate, Jamal Bowman. Mr.
Bowman, an African American is ideologically very similar to AOC, Tlaib, and Omar.
He won on
a platform of foreign policy endorsed by the left-zionists (ex-labor zionists) against the
likudnik right-wing zionist of Engles' which is very interesting since, Engel has been known
for his hawkish views on foreign policy and extremely pro-Israel and chaired the House
Foreign Affairs Committee recently.
Recently Sanders and the Democratic Socialists expressed their opposition to Bibi's
planned annexation of West-bank and adjacent Palestinian enclaves and threatened to to
cut-off the military aid to Israel if Bibi moved on with his plan.
Domestically, there are several seats up for re-election and especially two in Georgia and
Arizona Senate whose ppointed Republican candidates are in very shaky grounds versus their
democratic challengers. What is clear is that the New Democrat platforms are no longer
popular by the Democratic base and given recent events, it can be safely said that either the
most law and order and Trumpian candidates will win or the Democratic socialists endorsed
ones. So another problem for the New Dems.
Judging by my observation, the current trend is the alliance between the NeverTrumpers
(The Lincoln project, The Right Pac) like Bill Kristol and the
Reagan-to-Bush-43-neoconservatives (most of whom were Reagan Democrats in the late 70s and
80s themselves so nothing new for them) to push Trump out of office in their view before the
RNC in Aug and to make room for the New Democrats and also to restore their previous 20+
years of reigning over the Republican Party. If their plan becomes successful, in the post
2020 election we will see a political configuration resembling the 90s and early 2000s with
one major difference which is the introduction of several, in my opinion less that 10 seats
in the House reserved for the far-Left socialist Democrats.
And in terms of Foreign policy, everyone will get happy and the Blob/Borg think tank class
in D.C. will see business as usual as the Democratic Socialists will be "persuaded" to team
up with the New Democrats with regards to sending Troops to conduct humanitarian intervention
abroad (i.e. the Powell Doctrine) in exchange for domestic welfare programs, the
NeverTrumpers and the Republican hawks (Cotton, Graham, Rubio, Cruz, etc.) will have war
plans already written for them at AEI, Hudson and Heritage that focuses on China with the
help of the New Democrats and probably the Far-left.
Samantha Power is Irish bred and London born. She was schooled in Dublin till her mother
emigrated to the US. Christiane Amanpour is British-Iranian. As far as I can determine she
never has had US citizenship. Christopher Hitchens is English born, never visited America
unti he was 32. And even then kept his British citizenship for another 26 years, only
becoming a US citizen in 2007. Probably to take advantage of favorable US income tax on his
book earnings.
WTF were they smoking when they decided to promote war to secure human rights??? So why
did we let these halfwits in the country?
Seems to me we are better off by letting in a few more Sikh farmers from India or more
wannabee restaurant owners from Ethiopia. Or maybe even more wannabee bodega empresarios from
south of our border.
Anyone remember John Kerry, who criticized the anti-war movement and enlisted and served
in Vietnam, only to opportunistically turn against the war. As long as the winds blew
anti-war, he continued to posture that way. Then he reversed course, maybe sensing an SOS
opportunity, and voted for the War in Iraq, meanwhile posturing against it on the grounds
that it wasn’t being fought right!
Kerry seems is the perfect example of Democrats’ hypocritical
‘opposition’ to pointless and futile wars. Not that anybody remembers, but it was
the liberal Bill Clinton who went to war in Yugoslavia and defanged the anti-war wing of the
party. After Clinton Democrats only raised their voices against Republican wars and now have
taken to criticizing Trump for not being belligerent enough!!!
The "anti-antiwar left" is of course an oxymoron. In reality, they are neo-McCarthyites,
neocons, and Israel-firsters. Nothing new. They were never leftists to begin with and
certainly never will be.
To add onto the comments by Polish Janitor regarding Jamaal Bowman, I have this to say.
Just like AOC, he'll cuck out to Israel. He'll take the money and he'll probably take that
"educational" trip to Israel as well. While he's there, would anyone be surprised if he had a
hot time with some honey pie and they got him on Kodak? They'll only drop hints about the
stick, in the meantime, they'll be stuffing his face with carrots as he comes around to the
Zionist agenda.
The same white men who stood three years ago Charlottesville to prevent the toppling of
statues could be the backbone of a new anti-war movement, if only conservatives weren't
afraid of being called 'racist' by people who hate them anyway.
To better get one's bearings regarding what's going on I highly recommend this Spectator
article to the committee. Although BLM and other nefarious types referred to as Antifa
certainly do pass the anarchist test and Marxist test it's critical the committee understand
that the whole thing is being managed by a wing of the establishment.
The New York Times is
not revolutionary, not by a very long shot. Neither are all the big corporations and
foundations who've donated generously to the cause of BLM.
Editorial talents at NYT
instigated the wholesale rewriting of American history over a year ago with their fraudulent
1619 project which says American history began in that year with the importation of African
slaves.
But it's real thesis is that the revolution of 1776 (an inspiration to people
everywhere), was not undertaken to free the thirteen colonies from the tyranny of King
George - no - it was done for the sole reason of perpetuation of slavery because Washington
and other colonial land owners feared that the institution of slavery would be made illegal
by their then British overlords. I kid you not.
The NY Times. Pure revisionism of the worst
sort. But the ends which this revisionism serve, as do the subsequent BLM riots and mindless
iconoclasms, are revealed in this piece:
(This Revolution isn't What it Looks Like). Here's a brief excerpt - it's a management
device. Matt Taibbi has a treatment nearly as good but too diffuse and witty for these
purposes, under the title "Year Zero" on his blog, but it is behind a paywall. Many
illustrative exames though.
Spectator first few paragraphs..
Bear with this. What they're doing is designed to infuriate and disable critical
understanding as they proceed to carry the day in real time.
QUOTE:
America is not in the middle of a revolution — it is a reactionary putsch. About
four years ago, the sort of people who had acquired position and influence as a result of
globalisation were turfed out of power for the first time in decades. They watched in horror
as voters across the world chose Brexit, Donald Trump and other populist and
conservative-nationalist options.
This deposition explains the storm of unrest battering American cities from coast to coast
and making waves in Europe as well. The storm’s ferocity — the looting, the mobs,
the mass lawlessness, the zealous iconoclasm, the deranged slogans like #DefundPolice —
terrifies ordinary Americans. Many conservatives, especially, believe they are facing a
revolution targeting the very foundations of American order.
But when national institutions bow (or kneel) to the street fighters’ demands, it
should tell us that something else is going on. We aren’t dealing with a Maoist or
Marxist revolt, even if some protagonists spout hard-leftish rhetoric. Rather, what’s
playing out is a counter-revolution of the neoliberal class — academe, media, large
corporations, ‘experts’, Big Tech — against the nationalist revolution
launched in 2016. The supposed insurgents and the elites are marching in the streets
together, taking the knee together.
They do not seek a radically new arrangement, but a return to the pre-Trump, pre-Brexit
status quo ante which was working out very well for them. It was, of course, working out less
well for the working class of all races, who bore the brunt of their preferred policy mix:
open borders, free trade without limits, an aggressive cultural liberalism that corroded
tradition and community, technocratic ‘global governance’ that neutered democracy
and politics as such.
When national institutions bow to the street fighters’ demands, it tells us
something else is going on
...Did you realize that the Black Lives Matter group only has 14 local chapters in America
and 3 in Canada? I don't think there are many actual Antifa members out there either. Now of
course a few determined troublemakers can cause a lot of problems but still I can't see how
the country is in real danger.
Probably the real danger here is that these groups get moral support from nonradical
people for radical actions and policies. Right now there are a lot more people against
getting rid of the police than are for it. Now if that changed I would get worried. I have to
admit that I don't like the fact that we do not know who's funding the radicals and that many
are anonymous but I am not afraid of them. I can't imagine a situation in which they would
win and we would lose over time.
No it doesn't, not that I know of. It was the brainchild of Nikole Hannah-Jones working
since 2015 for the times, who received a 2020 Pulitzer prize for the project which initially
was presented in the Times magazine for the 400th anniversary of 1619 when it is claimed that
enslaved Africans first arrived to the American colonies. However it mushroomed into
something much larger and won the award. It was to investigate the legacy of slavery but with
its claim that the true founding of the United States was in 1619 rather than 1776, it drew
criticism from several historians. The controversy was conducted in Politico and on the pages
of the World Socialist Web Site. See here:
You will find links to several of the articles of the project, including: "America Wasn't
a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones and "American
Capitalism Is Brutal. You Can Trace That to the Plantation", essay by Matthew Desmond.
I prefaced the intro to the Spectator article with mention of the Times award winning
project because it is vital cultural- historical background to what's transpired since George
Floyd incident of May 25.
My purpose was not to focus on that revisionist project though one
may investigate it at leisure, but the reactionary establishment counter coup to the 2016
election of which the events of May 25 et seq are the most recent chapter - chapters one and
two being Russiagate and impeachment.
Taibbi, in his latest which parallels the Spectator
piece, does think to mention it. The essential idea is that neither the non Trump wing of the
American establishment (more properly Global establishment still anchored tenuously in DC)
nor the Trump wing want the voters to discuss the economy - it's too hot a subject.
Way too
hot since the financial crisis of 2007-08 followed the working class jobs overseas and south
of the border in the 90s and inequality exceeded that of the gilded age. No. But they will
discuss racism (and gender). It divides the country further than ever, deflects focus on
wealth disparity (the establishment has no intention of ever equalizing wealth even a bit)
and presto - gives corporate America and media a new policing tool in the form of mandatory
workshops and summary job dismissals even more unsubstantiated than many of those with
#MeToo. It enhances the academic totalitarians of political correctness with corporate /
employer totalitarianism of "learn your inclusivity lessons reeducation camp" or else. Unions
disappeared long ago and now this.
From Taibbi:
It’s the Fourth of July, and revolution is in the air. Only in America would it look
like this: an elite-sponsored Maoist revolt, couched as a Black liberation movement whose
canonical texts are a corporate consultant’s white guilt self-help manual, and a New
York Times series rewriting history to explain an election they called wrong.
Much of America has watched in quizzical silence in recent weeks as crowds declared war on
an increasingly incoherent succession of historical symbols. Maybe you nodded as Confederate
general Albert Pike was toppled or even when Christopher Columbus was beheaded, but it got a
little weird when George Washington was emblazoned with “Fuck Cops” and set on
fire, or when they went after Ulysses S. Grant, abolitionist Colonel Hans Christian Heg,
“Forward,” (a seven-foot-tall female figure meant to symbolize progress), the
Portland, Oregon “Elk statue,” or my personal favorite, the former slave Miguel
de Cervantes, whose cheerful creations Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were apparently mistaken
for reals and had their eyes lashed red in San Francisco.
Was a What the Fuck? too much to ask? It was! In the space of a few weeks the level of
discourse in the news media dropped so low, the fear of being shamed as a deviationist so
high, that most of the weirder incidents went uncovered. Leading press organs engaged in
real-time Soviet-style airbrushing. Here’s how the Washington Post described a movement
that targeted Spanish missionary Junipero Serra, Abraham Lincoln (a “single-handed
symbol of white supremacy,” according to UW-Madison students), an apple cider press
sculpture, abolitionist Mathias Baldwin, and the first all-Black volunteer regiment in the
Civil War, among others:
Across the country, protesters have toppled statues of figures from America’s sordid
past — including Confederate generals — as part of demonstrations against racism
and police violence.
The New York Times, once the dictionary definition of “unprovocative,”
suddenly reads like Pol Pot’s Sayings of Angkar. Heading into the Fourth of July
weekend, the morning read for upscale white Manhattanites was denouncing Mount Rushmore,
urging Black America to arm itself, and re-positioning America alongside more deserving
historical parallels in a feature about caste systems:
For 150 years the US treated its defeated internal enemy with respect in the interest of
re-unification and reconciliation. Now that is gone destroyed by Marxist vanguard
conspiratorial parties like antifa and BLM and the the power hungry Democrat Party pols who
have made a deal with their soul mate extremists. Well, laissez les bon temps roulez!
Yes the stupidity is ominous. They act as though there is no potential for repurcussion.
It's very peculiar. Maybe they think oh well, there's been plenty of riots over the years.
What ever happened? Didn't we get OJ freed? Didn't they pass civil rights legislation back in
the day? And as for right now - aren't all the big people taking the knee - aren't
corporations endorsing us? Isn't Twitter censoring in our favor? The mayor of New York City -
wasn't he all set to paint a black lives matter mural onto 5th avenue opposite Trump tower
before postponing it to paint one in Harlem instead?
Yes, all true. I don't think they've detected how furious people are getting with their
behavior though. The tide is turning - CHAZ is gone, the conventions loom.
Long term I see nothing to be optimistic about. If Trump wins the counter coups will
continue. If Biden, with a female minority VP who may become President -- good luck. Remember
the Tea Party reaction ensuing on the heels of the first African American President? Reaction
will be quite as bad at least with Trump, his family and his base still very much on the
scene and infuriated.
But the oligarchs have seen their assets rise by hundreds of billions of dollars in a few
short months. The surviving owners consolidate. People will be forced to work for peanuts.
Evictions and repossessions are coming soon.
So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy
:-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his
attempt to
gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the
old P5+1:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be
extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where
Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were
ambivalent.
The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous
effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after
reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months
ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The
administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There
is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the
JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other
parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and
U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part
of the deal.
Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the
U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies
joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:
The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating
international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with
China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.
The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to
destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S.
stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran
and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of
its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.
Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's
alarmist
warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters
that it would use to threaten Europe and India:
If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can
strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and
Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.
This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last
thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how
deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to
launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed
these capabilities while under the current embargo.
It has no need for expensive fighters, and
it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that
has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications
about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.
The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem
flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments
in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries
in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should
consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on
Yemen and Libya.
The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to
reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt
to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.
The national security elite now wants us to believe we are seeing things that aren't really
there. 'Gaslight' lobbycard, from left, Charles Boyer, Ingrid Bergman, 1944. (Photo by LMPC via
Getty Images)
Ten years ago, "restraint" was considered code for "isolationism" and its purveyors were
treated with nominal attention and barely disguised condescension. Today, agitated national
security elites who can no longer ignore the restrainers -- and the positive attention they're
getting -- are trying to cut them down to size.
We saw this recently when Peter Feaver, Hal Brands, and William Imboden, who all made their
mark promoting George W. Bush's war policies after 9/11,
published "In Defense of the Blob" for Foreign Affairs in April.
My own pushback received an attempted drubbing in The Washington Post by
national security professor Daniel Drezner ( he of
the Twitter fame ): "For one thing, her essay repeatedly contradicts itself. The Blob is an
exclusive cabal, and yet Vlahos also says it's on the wane."
One can be both, Professor. As they say, Rome didn't fall in a day. What we are
witnessing are individuals and institutions sensing existential vulnerabilities. The
restrainers have found a nerve and the Blob is feeling the pinch. Now it's starting to throw
its tremendous girth around.
The latest example is from Michael J. Mazarr, senior political scientist at the Rand
Corporation, which since 1948 has essentially provided the brainpower behind the Military
Industrial Congressional Complex. Mazarr published this
voluminous warrant against restrainers in the most recent issue of TheWashington
Quarterly, which is run by the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington
University. Its editorial board reeks of the conventional
internationalist thinking that has prevailed over the last 70 years.
In "Rethinking Restraint: Why It Fails in Practice," Mazarr insists that the critics have it
all wrong: "American primacy" is way overstated and the U.S. has been more moderate in military
interventions than it's given credit for. Moreover, he says, the restrainers divide current "US
strategy into two broad caricatures -- primacy or liberal hegemony at one extreme, and
restraint at the other. Such an approach overlooks a huge, untidy middle ground where the views
of most US national security officials reside and where most US policies operate."
There is much to unpack in his nearly 10,000-word brief, and much to counter it. For
example, Monica Duffy Toft has done incredible
research into the history of U.S. interventions over the last 70 years, in part studying
the number of times we've used force in response to incidents of foreign aggression. While the
United States engaged in 46 military interventions from 1948 to 1991, from 1992 to 2017, that
number increased fourfold to 188 (chart below). Kind of calls Mazarr's "frequent impulse to
moderation" theory into question.
But I would like to zero in on the most infuriating charge, which mimics Drezner, Brands,
Feaver, et al.: that the idea of a powerful, largely homogeneous foreign policy establishment
dominating top levels of government, think tanks, media, and academia is really all in our
heads. It's not real.
This weak attempt to gaslight the rest of us is an insult to George Cukor's 1944 Hollywood classic . It's
unworthy. In the section "There is No Sinister National Security Elite," Mazarr turns to
Stephen Walt (who wrote an entire book on
the self-destructive Blob) and Andrew Bacevich (who has written that the ideology of American
exceptionalism and primacy "serves the interests of those who created the national security
state and those who still benefit from its continued existence"). This elite, both men charge,
enjoy "status, influence, and considerable wealth" in return for supporting the consensus.
To this Mazarr contends, "Apart from collections of anecdotes, those convinced of the
existence of such a homogenous elite offer no objective evidence -- such as surveys,
interviews, or comprehensive literature reviews -- to back up these sweeping claims." Then
failing to offer his own evidence, he argues:
on specific policy questions -- whether to go to war or conduct a humanitarian
intervention, or what policy to adopt toward China or Cuba or Russia or Iran -- debates in
Washington are deep, intense, and sometimes bitter. To take just a single example from recent
history, the Obama administration's decision to endorse a surge in Afghanistan came only
after extended deliberation and soul-searching, and it included a major, and highly
controversial, element of restraint -- a very public deadline to begin a graduated
withdrawal.
Let's go back to 2009, because some of us actually remember these "deep, intense, and
sometimes bitter" times.
First, the only "bitter debates" were
between the military, which wanted to "surge" 40,000 troops into Afghanistan in the first year
of Obama's presidency, and the president, who had promised to bring the war to an end. After
months, Obama "compromised" when in December 2009, he announced a plan for 30,000 new troops
(which would bring the then-current number to 98,000) and a timetable for withdrawal of 18
months hence, which really pleased no one , not even the outlier restrainers, like
Mazarr suggests.
In fact, restrainers knew the timetable was bunk, and it was. In 2011, there were still
100,000 troops on the ground. In fact, it didn't get down to pre-2009 levels until December
2013.
But let it be clear: the only contention in December 2009 was over the timetable (the hawks
at the Heritage
Foundation and
AEI wanted an open-ended commitment) and whether the president should have been more
deferential to his generals (General Stanley McCrystal had just been installed as commander in
Afghanistan and
the mainstream media was fawning ). Otherwise, every major think tank in town and national
security pundit blasted out press releases and op-eds supporting the presidents strategy with
varying degrees of enthusiasm. None, aside from the usual TAC suspects, raised a serious
note against it. Examples:
John " Eating
Soup with a Knife " Nagl,
Center for a New American Security : "This strategy will protect the Afghan population with
international forces now and build Afghan security forces that in time will allow an American
drawdown–leaving behind a more capable Afghan government and a more secure region which
no longer threatens the United States and our allies." Each of the CNAS fellows on this press
release offer a variation on the same theme, with some more energetic than others. Ditto for
this one from The Council on Foreign
Relations .
Vanda Felhab-Brown,
Brookings Institution : "there would have been no chance to turn the security situation
around, take the momentum away from the Taliban, and hence, enable economic development and
improvements in governance and rule of law, without the surge."
David Ignatius, TheWashington
Post : "Obama has made what I think is the right decision: The only viable 'exit
strategy' from Afghanistan is one that starts with a bang -- by adding 30,000 more U.S. troops
to secure the major population centers, so that control can be transferred to the Afghan army
and police."
Ahead of Obama's decision (during the "bitter debate"), the Brookings Institution's Michael
O'Hanlon, a fixture on TheWashington Post op-ed pages and cable news
shows -- was pushing for
the maximum : "President Barack Obama should approve the full buildup his commanders are
requesting, even as he also steels the nation for a difficult and uncertain mission ahead."
Meanwhile, all of the so-called progressive national security groups, including the Center
for American Progress, Third Way, and the National Security Network, heralded Obama's plan as
"a smarter, stronger strategy that stated clear objectives and is based on American security
interests, namely preventing terrorist attacks."
"Counterintuitively," they said in a
joint statement , "sending more troops will allow us to get out more quickly."
Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has always
been a thoughtful skeptic, but he never fails to offer a hedge on whatever new plan comes down
the pike. Here he
is on Obama's surge , exemplifying how difficult it was/is for the establishment to just
call a failure a failure:
The strategy President Obama has set forth in broad terms can still win if the
Afghan government and Afghan forces become more effective, if NATO/ISAF national
contingents provide more unity of effort, if aid donors focus on the fact that
development cannot succeed unless the Afghan people see real progress where they live in the
near future, and if the United States shows strategic patience and finally provides
the resources necessary to win.
That's a lot of "ifs," but they provide amazing cover for those who don't want to admit the
cause is lost -- or can't -- because their work depends on giving the military and State
Department something to do. This is what happens when your think tank relies on government
contracts and grants and arms industry
money . According to TheNew York Times, major defense contractors Lockheed
Martin and Boeing gave some $77 million to a dozen think tanks between 2010 and 2016.
They aren't getting the money to advocate that troops, contractors, NGO's, and diplomats
come home and stay put. Money and agenda underwrites who is heading the think tanks,
who speaks for the national security programs, and who populates conferences,
book launches, speeches, and television appearances. Mazarr doesn't think this can be
quantified but it's rather easy. Google "2009 Afghanistan conference/panel/speakers" and plenty
of events come up. Pick any year, the results are predictable.
Here's a Brookings Panel in August 2009
, assessing the Afghanistan election, including Anthony Cordesman, Kimberly Kagan, and Michael
O'Hanlon. Not a lot of "diversity" there. Here's a taste of the 2009 annual CNAS
conference, which featured the usual suspects, including David Petraeus, Ambassador Nicholas
Burns, and 1,400 people in attendance. Aside from Andrew " Skunk
at the Garden Party " Bacevich, there was little to distinguish one world view from another
among the panelists. (CNAS was originally founded in support of Hillary Clinton's 2008
campaign; she spoke at the inaugural conference in 2007. Former president Michele Flournoy
later landed in the E-Ring of the Pentagon.) Meanwhile, here's a Hudson Institute
tribute to David Petraeus, attended by Scooter Libby, and a December 2009
Atlantic Council panel with -- you guessed it -- Kimberly Kagan and two military
representatives thrown in to pump up McChrystal and NATO and staying the course.
On top of it all, these events and their people never failed to get the attention of the
major corporate media, which just loved the idea of warrior-monk generals "liberating"
Afghanistan through a "government in a box" counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy.
Honestly, thank goodness for Cato , which before the new
Quincy Institute, was the only think tank to feature COIN critics like Colonel
Gian Gentile , and not just as foils. The Center for the National Interest also harbored
skeptics of the president's strategy. But they were outnumbered too.
This is what I want to convey. Mazarr boasts there is a galaxy of opinion today over U.S.
policy in Iran, China, Russia, NATO. I would argue there is a narrow spectrum of technical and
ideological disagreement in all these cases, but nowhere was it more important to have strong,
competing voices than during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and there was none of that in any
realistic sense of the word.
I challenge him and the others to take down the straw men and own the ecosystem to which
they owe their success in Washington (Mazarr just published a piece called "Toward a New
Theory of Power Projection" for goodness sake). Stop trying to pretend what is there isn't.
Realists and restrainers are happy to debate the merits of our different approaches, but
gaslighting is for nefarious lovers and we're no Ingrid Bergman. about the author
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC since 2007, focusing on
national security, foreign policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15
years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP News in Washington from
2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a
beat reporter at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security
Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native Nutmegger, she got her start
in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
Pompeo is suggesting that Iran will spend tens of millions on planes, fly them unopposed
through the radar coverage of several countries, to let Iranian Kamikaze pilots crash them into
some temple in Nepal.
This does not make any sense. No foreign politician will be impressed by this 'argument'.
Pompeo's tweet is for consumption at home.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a long-awaited U.N. Security
Council (UNSC) draft resolution extending an arms embargo on Iran that is due to expire in
October, setting the stage for a great-power clash and likely veto in the U.N.'s principal
security body, according to a copy of the draft obtained by Foreign Policy .
...
If passed, the resolution would fall under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, making it legally
binding and enforceable. But the U.S. measure, according to several U.N. Security Council
diplomats, stands little chance of being adopted by the 15-nation council.
...
Some council diplomats and other nonproliferation experts see the U.S. move as a way to score
political points at home , not to do anything about Iran's destabilizing activities in the
region.
"The skeptic in me says that the objective of this exercise is to go through the arms
embargo resolution, and when it fails, to use that as an excuse to get a snapback of the
embargo, and if and when that fails too, to use as a political talking point in the election
campaign ," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department nonproliferation official now at
the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Since China and Russia are almost certain
to ignore any U.N. arms embargo forced by U.S. maneuvers, the practical impact on Iran's
ability to cause mischief will be minimal, he said.
"It's not actually about stopping any arms from China and Russia, it's about winning a
political argument ," he said.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Chinese government's top diplomat, Wang Yi,
both wrote to the 15-member council and U.N. chief Antonio Guterres as the United States
threatens to spark a so-called sanctions snapback under the Iran nuclear deal, even though
Washington quit the accord in 2018.
Lavrov wrote in the May 27 letter, made public this week, that the United States was being
"ridiculous and irresponsible."
"This is absolutely unacceptable and serves only to recall the famous English proverb
about having one's cake and eating it," Lavrov wrote.
Washington has threatened to trigger a return of U.N. sanctions on Iran if the Security
Council does not extend an arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's deal with
world powers to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
...
Lavrov cited a 1971 International Court of Justice opinion, which found that a fundamental
principle governing international relationships was that "a party which disowns or does not
fulfill its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to
derive from the relationship."
Despite the evident failure to convince others the U.S. continues make stupid
arguments :
Russia and China will be isolated at the United Nations if they continue down the "road to
dystopia" by blocking a U.S. bid to extend a weapons ban on Iran, U.S. Iran envoy Brian Hook
told Reuters ahead of his formal pitch of the embargo to the U.N. Security Council on
Wednesday.
...
"We see a widening gap between Russia and China and the international community," Hook said
in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday evening.
The U.S. has left the JCPoA deal and can not claim a right under that deal to snap back the
sanctions that the deal has lifted. It is the U.S. that is isolated. Even its allies do not
support the attempt:
"We firmly believe that any unilateral attempt to trigger UN sanctions snapback would have
serious adverse consequences in the UNSC," the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and
Germany said in a statement on June 19. "We would not support such a decision which would be
incompatible with our current efforts to preserve the JCPoA."
The Trump policy against Iran has failed. He has tried a 'maximum pressure' campaign to
blackmail Iran into more concessions. But despite sanctions and economic problems caused by
them Iran is not willing to talk with him. Its conditions for talks
are clear :
"We have no problem with talks with the U.S., but only if Washington fulfils its obligations
under the nuclear deal, apologies and compensates Tehran for its withdrawal from the 2015
deal," Rouhani said in a televised speech.
The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including the new sanctions against Syria under
the 'Ceasar's Law', have been helping Iran to
strengthen its position :
Iran is reaping huge benefits, including more robust allies and resistant strongholds as a
result of the US's flawed Middle Eastern policies. Motivated by the threat of the
implementation of "Caesar' Law", Iran has prepared a series of steps to sell its oil and
finance its allies, bypassing depletion of its foreign currency reserves.
Iranian companies found in Syria a paradise for strategic investment and offered the
needed alternative to a Syrian economy crippled by sanctions and nine years of war. Iran
considers Syria a fertile ground to expand its commerce and business like never before.
With Iran's influence growing and Russia making
inroads even with once staunch U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia it seems that real U.S.
influence in the Middle East is on a decisive downturn.
Whatever Pompous Pompeo says or tweets will not change that. But there's a sucker born every
minute. Some of those may still fall for the stuff he says.
--- Twice a year I ask readers of this blog to support my effort. Please consider contributing
.
Posted by b on June 24, 2020 at 17:10 UTC | Permalink
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double
government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of
government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable"
Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America
has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn
its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined
not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens,
the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that
"there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S.
Constitution and government."
One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W.
Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose
was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements
and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy
has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored
from the actual Constitution.
In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an
unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She
rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely
esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no,
"it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our
behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."
She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global
responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are
different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that
foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless
resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American
interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."
In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently
argued
that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation
from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government"
that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The
Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the
establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no
part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.
Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should
not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals
should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no
better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy
around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams
position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be
unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted:
"it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."
When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes
clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the
future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment,
she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe."
Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge,
multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern
with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States.
We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is
entirely appropriate."
She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a
normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and
become again an unusually successful, open American republic."
Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979
article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of
the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments
that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free
and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without
republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the
world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act
of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to
traverse."
While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a
tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider
Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself
to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.
Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey
Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993
she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance
against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the
invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W.
Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is
not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."
The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald
Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president)
make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like
pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War
alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she
were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast.
That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign
of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.
William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the
Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy
and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy
under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.
When it comes to
foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch
'Pompeo is a
natural Trumpist.' Donald Trump's disdain for the
people, country and values his office is supposed to represent is unmatched in recent memory.
And he has found in the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo , a kindred spirit who has
embraced his role as Trumpism's number one proselytizer to the world.
Pompeo doesn't wield nearly as much power or have the jurisdiction to inflict damage on as
wide a range of issues as the president. He's not as crass or erratic as Trump, and his Twitter
feed seems dedicated more to childish
mockery than outright attacks. But when it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for
undermining America's credibility is top-notch.
At Pompeo's recommendation,
Trump fired the state department's inspector general, who is supposed to be an independent
investigator charged with looking into potential wrongdoing inside the department. Steve Linick
was just the latest in a series of inspectors general across
the government that Trump had fired in an attempt to hide the misconduct of his administration
– but it also shone a spotlight on how Pompeo has undermined his agency.
Watchdog was investigating Pompeo for arms deal and staff misuse
before firing
According to news reports, Pompeo was being investigated by the inspector general for
bypassing Congress and possibly breaking the law in sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, even
though his own department and the rest of the US government
advised against the decision. He was also supposedly
organizing fancy dinners – paid for by taxpayers – with influential
businesspeople and TV personalities that seemed geared more towards supporting Pompeo's
political career than advancing US foreign policy goals. And he was reportedly being
scrutinized for using department personnel to conduct personal business, such as getting
dry cleaning and walking his dog.
But these revelations merely reaffirm a pattern of activities by Pompeo unbecoming of the
nation's top diplomat. When the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Trump
over his attempt to extort Ukraine for personal political purposes – an act that Pompeo
was aware of – Pompeo defended Trump while throwing under the bus career state department
officials, like the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who spoke out. Pompeo
has regularly ignored Congress, withholding documents from lawmakers – including during
the Ukraine impeachment investigation – and refusing to appear for testimony. In 2019,
the IG released a report detailing
political retaliation against career state department officials being perpetrated by Trump
officials. And Pompeo has spent considerable time traveling to Kansas and conducting media
interviews there, fueling speculation that he has been using his position to tee up a run for
the Senate, a
violation of the Hatch Act.
Pompeo is a natural Trumpist. In her fantastic profile
of the secretary of state, Susan Glasser notes of his first congressional race: "Pompeo ran a
nasty race against the Democrat, an Indian-American state legislator named Raj Goyle, who,
unlike Pompeo, had grown up in Wichita. Pompeo's campaign tweeted praise for an article calling
Goyle a 'turban topper', and a supporter bought billboards urging residents to 'Vote American – Vote Pompeo'."
... ... ...
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and
Pompeo has weaponized the state department on the president's behalf.' Photograph: Kevin
Lamarque/Reuters
Next to Trump's assault on US values, Pompeo's role as top Trump lackey may seem
insignificant. But the secretary of state is often the most senior US official that other
countries and publics hear from on any number of issues. Even with Trump in the Oval Office, a
secretary of state that was committed to the constitution - not Trump - would at least be able
to fight for the values that US foreign policy should embody,
and shield the department's day-to-day business from Trump's outbursts.
The work that
department professionals conduct around the world – helping American citizens abroad get
home in the early days of the pandemic or coordinating assistance to other countries to cope
with the coronavirus – is vital to American national security, and at the core of the
image that America projects abroad.
Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized
the state department on his behalf
Just take a look at the progressive schooling of 'diplomats' who end up in American
ambassadorial and consular posts. Where do they come from? The Heritage Institute, Legatum,
the American Enterprise Institute, and various other America-Triumphant think tanks. Look at
Michael McFaul, and his absurd just-a-ole-homeboy-who-loves-Russia video he put out before
taking up his official duties in Moscow. And he barely had the dust of New York off his shoes
before he was huddling with the Russian opposition. I don't know why Russia even affects to
be surprised by their attitudes.
Have they nothing better to do than peddle their Russophobia?
Wouldn't it be more useful to allocate $ 250,000 to save someone's lives, @StateDept ? Instead
of "Exposing Russian Health Disinformation"
➡️ https://t.co/Hv3CydUgBX
From MoA comment
57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other
side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long
series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world
heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With
China's BRI
The battle for Australia's soul has begun.
Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called
Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the
planet.
This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of
the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if
sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless
consequences.
On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data
traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever
do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...
Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it.
Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.
Yhe president announced on Friday that he was firing Steve Linick, the State Department's
Inspector General.
One possible reason that Linick was removed may have been that he was conducting an
investigation into the
bogus emergency declaration that the administration used to expedite arms sales to Saudi
Arabia and the UAE last year:
House Democrats have discovered that the fired IG had mostly completed an investigation
into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's widely criticized decision to skirt Congress with an
emergency declaration to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year,
aides on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me.
"I have learned that there may be another reason for Mr. Linick's firing," Rep. Eliot L.
Engel (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement sent to me.
"His office was investigating -- at my request -- Trump's phony declaration of an emergency
so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia."
If Linick was investigating the bogus emergency declaration, he would have come across
reporting that showed how a
former Raytheon lobbyist serving at the department was instrumental in pushing through the
plan to expedite arms sales that benefited his old employer. He would have discovered that
there was no genuine emergency that justified going around Congress. Once his investigation was
concluded, it would have found that the emergency declaration was made in bad faith and that
the law was abused so that the administration could proceed with arms sales that Congress
opposed.
Another reason for the firing was to
protect Mike Pompeo from an investigation into the Secretary's abuses of government
resources for personal purposes:
The State Department inspector general fired by President Trump was looking into
allegations that a staffer for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was performing domestic errands
and chores such as handling dry cleaning, walking the family dog and making restaurant
reservations, said a congressional official familiar with the matter.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee released a statement immediately on Friday objecting to Linick's firing and
suggesting that it might be an illegal act of retaliation. There will now be a Congressional
investigation into the circumstances surrounding Linick's firing. If Trump hoped to reduce the
scrutiny on Pompeo by getting rid of Linick, he will be disappointed. It remains to be seen how
much of a price Pompeo will pay for this, but the price is likely higher now than it would have
been if he hadn't pushed for removing the inspector general.
Pompeo reportedly recommended
Linick's removal. This is not the first time that Pompeo has been accused of misusing
government resources. There was a report
last summer that a whistleblower alleged that Pompeo and his wife were using Diplomatic
Security agents as their personal errand boys:
Democrats on a key House congressional committee are investigating allegations from a
whistleblower within the State Department about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his
family's use of taxpayer-funded Diplomatic Security -- prompting agents to lament they are at
times viewed as "UberEats with guns".
Congressional investigators, who asked for the committee not to be named as they carry out
their inquiries, tell CNN that a State Department whistleblower has raised multiple issues
over a period of months, about special agents being asked to carry out some questionable
tasks for the Pompeo family.
Pompeo has also repeatedly used government resources for domestic travel that seems to have
more to do with advancing the Secretary's political ambitions in Kansas. There has been
widespread speculation that he has used official trips in an attempt to lay the groundwork for
a possible
Senate campaign . If so, it would be a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act. That prompted a
call for a special counsel investigation into Pompeo's travel. If Pompeo and his wife have
been using a political appointee as a gofer, that would be more of the same abusive
behavior.
Linick has previously clashed with other Trump administration officials at State. Last year,
he released a damning
report on Brian Hook over his treatment of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iranian-American
official who was apparently
targeted for political retaliation because of her policy views and ethnic background. The
fired inspector general was well-respected at the department, and his firing at Pompeo's urging
will likely cause further demoralization at a department that has already been run into the
ground under the Secretary's dismal leadership.
The Secretary of State seems to think that government funds and personnel are at his
disposal for his personal errands and political activities. Linick was doing exactly what an
inspector general is supposed to be doing by investigating the allegations against him, and
then he was conveniently fired on Pompeo's recommendation. You could hardly ask for a more
straightforward case of a corrupt official using his influence to remove the person responsible
for scrutinizing his conduct. If Linick was also fired because he was in the process of
exposing the administration's dishonest push for more arms sales to the Saudi coalition, that
makes his removal all the more outrageous and sinister.
Hawk Elliot Abrams, reborn as a U.S. envoy, is at the spear point of recent aggressive moves
in Venezuela. US Special Representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams addresses the Atlantic
Council on the future of Venezuela in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2019. (Photo credit NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Called the "neocon zombie" by officials at the State Department, Abrams is known as an
operator who doesn't let anything stand in his way. He has a long history of pursuing
disastrous policies in government.
"Everything Abrams is doing now is the same thing he was doing during the Reagan
administration. He's very adept at manipulating the levers of power without a lot of
oversight," a former senior official at the State Department told The American
Conservative. The official added that Abrams is "singularly focused" on pursuing regime
change in Venezuela.
A little background on Abrams: when he served as Reagan's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, he concealed a
massacre of a thousand men, women, and children by U.S.-funded death squads in El Salvador.
He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal, helping to secure covert funding for Contra
rebels in Nicaragua in violation of laws passed by Congress. In 1991, he pled guilty to
lying to Congress about the America's role in those two fiascos -- twice.
But then-president George H.W. Bush pardoned Abrams. He went on to support "measures to
scuttle the Latin American peace process launched by the Costa Rican president, Óscar
Arias" and use "the agency's money to unseat the Sandinistas in Nicaragua's 1990 general
elections," according
to Brian D'Haeseleer.
Under President George W. Bush, Abrams promoted regime change in Iraq.
Abrams was initially blocked from joining the Trump administration on account of a Never
Trump op-ed he'd penned. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo succeeded in bringing him onboard
last year, despite his history of support for disastrous regime change policies.
It's no surprise that with Abrams at the helm, U.S. rhetoric and actions towards Venezuela
are constantly "escalating," Dr. Alejandro Velasco, associate professor of Modern Latin America
at New York University, said an interview with TAC.
In just the last month, Washington has placed bounties on the heads of President
Nicolás Maduro and a dozen current and former Venezuelan officials. The U.S. also
deployed the largest fleet ever to the Southern Hemisphere.
Meanwhile, Abrams announced the " Democratic
Transition Framework for Venezuela ," which calls on Maduro's government to embrace a
power-sharing deal. The plan doesn't explain how Venezuelan leaders with bounties on their
heads are supposed to come to the table and negotiate with Juan Guaido, whom the U.S.
recognizes as Venezuela's legitimate leader. Abrams has also said that the U.S. does not
support a coup.
A few days after recommending a power-sharing arrangement, and 18 years after the U.S.
backed a putsch against Hugo Chavez, Abrams
warned that if Maduro resisted the organization of a "transitional government," his
departure would be far more "dangerous and abrupt." To many, Abrams'
aggressive rhetoric against Maduro made it sound like the U.S. was "effectively threatening
him with another assassination attempt," like the one Washington had "tacitly
supported" in 2018.
Two weeks after Abrams' warning, Operation Gideon began. Jordan Goudreau, an American
citizen, former Green Beret, and three-time Bronze Star recipient for bravery in Iraq and
Afghanistan, along with Javier Nieto, a retired Venezuelan military captain, posted a video
from an undisclosed location saying they had launched an attack that was meant to begin a
rebellion that would lead to Maduro's arrest and the installation of Juan Guaido.
In a public relations coup for Maduro, the plot was quickly foiled. Given that American
citizens were involved and have produced a contract allegedly signed by Guaido,
the incident has severely harmed the reputations of both the U.S. and the Venezuelan
opposition.
Both President Trump and Pompeo have denied that the U.S. had any "direct" involvement with
Goudreau's plot.
However, the Trump administration has given billions of dollars from USAID to Venezuela, and
that money is largely untraceable due to concerns about outing supporters of Guaido.
"With all the cash and arms sloshing around in Venezuela," it is not hard to imagine how
U.S. funding could inadvertently wind up supporting something like this, said Velasco.
There are other signs that the U.S. may have been more involved in the plot than they are
saying publicly.
For one, American mercenaries don't carry passports identifying themselves as American nor
do they return to the U.S. where they can be brought up on charges for their work, said Sean
McFate, professor of war and strategy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and
the National Defense University.
In order to sell weapons or training to another nation, it is necessary to receive
permission from the State Department. It's unclear whether Goudreau and his band did so. But
Goudreau's social media posts look like a pretty "clear cut" violation of the International
Convention Against the Recruitment, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and the U.S.
International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) said Peter Singer, a senior fellow at New
America.
We know that months before the fated coup, the CIA met with Goudreau in Jamaica and
allegedly warned him off the project. According to the AP, Goudreau is now under
investigation for arms trafficking . Members of Congress have asked the State Department
what they knew of Goudreau's plans. Given the illegal nature of the supposedly unauthorized
project, it's very strange that the ringleader is at present in Florida, talking to the press
and posting on social media.
Besides that warning, it seems no one in government tried to stop this calamitous
operation.
And it's not just regime change. Last year, Abrams
advocated granting special immigration status for the 70,000 Venezuelans residing illegally
in the U.S. as a way to "pressure Maduro" even though Trump ran on the promise to severely
limit the number of people granted Temporary Protected Status.
It was in pursuit of special status for Venezuelans that Abrams showed himself to be
"incredibly pompous, bull-headed, and willing to destroy anyone who opposes him, in a personal
way, including by trashing their reputations in the media," another senior State Department
official told TAC. Abrams is not above hiding policy options he doesn't like and
offering only those he favors to Pompeo to present to Trump, sources said.
Abrams ultimately prevailed and Venezuelans received refugee status from the Trump
administration, despite the fact that it betrayed Trump's campaign promises.
According to Velasco, there are some people in the administration who believe that
Venezuelans are the "new Cubans" -- that they will become a solid, loyal Republican vote in the
swing state of Florida if they're granted special status. They also believe that Venezuelan
expats want to see the U.S. remove Maduro. There are "many Cold Warriors" who believe all it
will take is a "little push" for Venezuelans to rise up and take out Maduro, said Velasco.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on whether Abrams is pursuing
a military confrontation in Venezuela.
"Cold Warrior" beliefs are dangerous. While "Operation Gideon" was especially clownish, had
it been more sophisticated, it could have easily sparked a world war. The Russians, Iranians,
and Chinese are all operating in Venezuela.
That specter is even more concerning now that Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov has
said that Russian special
services are on standby to help Venezuela's investigation of the mercenaries. about the
author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is
the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and
her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere.
Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
@BBatDC .
Thomas Meaney debunks the
myth of Henry Kissinger:
Since leaving office, too, Kissinger has rarely challenged consensus, let alone offered
the kind of inconvenient assessments that characterized the later career of George Kennan,
who warned President Clinton against NATO expansion after the Soviet Union's collapse. It is
instructive to measure Kissinger's instincts against those of a true realist, such as the
University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer. As the Cold War ended,
Mearsheimer was so committed to the "balance of power" principle that he made the striking
suggestion of allowing nuclear proliferation in a unified Germany and throughout Eastern
Europe. Kissinger, unable to see beyond the horizon of the Cold War, could not imagine any
other purpose for American power than the pursuit of global supremacy.
Although he has criticized the interventionism of neoconservatives, there is scarcely a
U.S. military adventure, from Panama to Iraq, that has not met with his approval. In all his
meditations on world order, he has not thought about how contingent and unforeseen America's
rise as global superpower actually was. Nothing in the country's republican tradition prior
to the Second World War demanded it.
The contrast between the worldviews and careers of Kennan and Kissinger is instructive, and
it helps to explain why the Washington foreign policy consensus has gotten so many things wrong
over the decades. Meaney mentions that as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that
the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its
continuation and escalation for many years. During the same period, Kennan spoke out against
the war, and urged full withdrawal. Kennan famously said:
There is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous
liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant or
unpromising objectives.
Kissinger insisted on just the opposite: that the cynical and stubborn pursuit of
extravagant and unpromising objectives was necessary to prove American resolve. Kissinger
couldn't have been more wrong, as subsequent events showed beyond any doubt, but his profound
wrongness had little or no effect on his standing in the U.S. It is no accident that Kissinger
has repeatedly endorsed pursuing such objectives up to and including the invasion of Iraq. The
blunders that Kennan warned against and correctly foresaw would be
costly and wasteful are the same ones that Kissinger approved and defended.
Our government usually listens to and employs the Kissingers to make our foreign policy, and
it ignores and marginalizes the Kennans once they start saying inconvenient things. Kissinger
had great success in advancing himself, and he has continued to be a fixture in the foreign
policy establishment almost fifty years after he last served in government, because he knows
how to provide arguments that lend legitimacy to dubious and aggressive policies. He made bogus
claims about "credibility" in the '60s that helped to perpetuate one war, and later generations
of hawks have used the same claims to justify involvement in new ones. Despite all the evidence
that his "credibility" arguments were nonsense, Kissinger's reputation has bizarrely continued
to improve over time.
Meaney also compares Kissinger with Hans Morgenthau:
Like Kissinger, Morgenthau had become well known with a popular book about foreign policy,
"Politics Among Nations" (1948). And he shared Kissinger's belief that foreign policy could
not be left to technocrats with flowcharts and statistics. But, unlike Kissinger, Morgenthau
was unwilling to sacrifice his realist principles for political influence [bold mine-DL]. In
the mid-sixties, working as a consultant for the Johnson Administration, he was publicly
critical of the Vietnam War, which he believed jeopardized America's status as a great power,
and Johnson had him fired.
The different responses to Vietnam are telling. Kennan and Morgenthau could see very clearly
that U.S. intervention was unnecessary and senseless, and they said as much. Kissinger could
see the same thing, but he pretended otherwise to gain influence. U.S. foreign policy then and
later would have benefited greatly from having more honest assessments of irresponsible
policies and fewer cynical endorsements of unnecessary wars. If we are to learn anything from
Kissinger's example, it is that we should strive to be as unlike him as we can be.
Also, it is worth mentioning the Soviet diplomacy's response to Keenan's Long Telegram,
for parity:
http://www-personal.umd.umi...
While Mr. Larison has to / must continue his excellent work as a chronicler of US
imperial madness, his and his peers' advice will continue to be ignored (ideally this
advice would not even exist and no record of it would pass beyond government doors or
"respectable" opinionators because TINA) regardless of public opinion pools and election
promises and voting results.
Only a US societal quasi collapse, or the establishment of US as an endemic source of
Covid-19 (or similar diseases), or Saudis selling their oil for other currencies beside US
dollars, or a faster rising of ocean levels, or a full blown and rapid economic war and
disengagement with China will potentially re-balance things. But it might be too late, and
the US would have by then forgotten how to use certain intellectual tools the way
Australian Aborigines and Tasmanians have forgotten to make and use bows and arrows.
It's amusingly daft to describe the US as having engaged in imperial madness, but ludicrous
to assert that Australian Aborigines ever used bows and arrows.
Thanks for that. I have always had a vague awareness that HK was a problematic factor, but,
being preoccupied with the daily grind, never scrutinized the record much. This short
comparative piece is good for clarity. Perhaps the saddest thing of all, though, is that
after all these decades, the HK perspective has become accepted by the Neo- factions (cons?
libs? does it matter?) as a default position. Makes US seem like we're in the thrall of a
military-industrial complex or something.
In defense of Kissinger, he was skeptical of the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states and
was much more open to diplomacy with Russia than most hawks in the GOP. But you're right
that too often Kissinger was afraid to make waves by opposing military interventions.
https://www.washingtonpost....
Kissinger is an example that this old adage is true. "Only the Good Die Young". The devil
is waiting for him. Kissinger is responsible for murdering and torturing many.
Kissinger was a brilliant historian and diplomat, with deep insights into how the world
works. However he was also a careerist who was willing to bend his views to achieve and
stay in power. For better or worse, he shaped US foreign policy for many years, and
strongly influenced it for many more.
Kennan was also a brilliant historian and diplomat, who had a huge impact on US policy
with his Long Telegram. But once the policy was accepted, he had little influence over its
long-term implementation because he refused to compromise and work with (manipulate?)
lesser beings.
And today, our foreign policy is run by people who know little of the world and none of
its history, and could care less. But they are great at PR and political manipulation. I'll
take either Kissinger or Kennan over any of them. Whatever their flaws, at least they knew
what they were talking about
You are correct in your description of Kissinger as a "careerist". Unfortunately, unlike
Kissinger George Kennan never became SoS, so he never had the president's
"ear." Some would argue that Truman should have picked him over Dean Acheson to succeed
George Marshall. One can only wonder how history would have panned out.
....as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that the war in Vietnam was
unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its continuation and
escalation for many years.
How could he stubbornly persist knowing that every day Americans were losing their lives
- for years. This guy must be a sociopath.
....as early as 1965 Kissinger was privately admitting that the war in Vietnam was
unwinnable, but publicly he supported it and went on to preside over its continuation and
escalation for many years.
How could he stubbornly persist knowing that every day Americans were losing their lives
- for years. This guy must be a sociopath.
"Wasn't completely honest"... mistress of understatements. She lied. The left's narrative
is imploding. Corrupt Ambassador, and the left whined when she was fired. Belongs in
prison... in Ukraine.
During the impeachment sham hearing, Yovanovitch said she had not recall anything about
the well known national scandal Burisma in Ukraine. Surprising, isn't it?
The entire Obama Administration was, for eight long years, a string of crimes and
cover-ups by the then President and all his partners in wrongdoings. When is Lady Justice
going to prevail?
"... If America's adversaries were made of strawmen, the defenders of the foreign policy "Blob" would have a foolproof strategy for defeating them. Unfortunately, a recent defense of the U.S. foreign policy establishment's record is no more successful than the policies that its authors have supported. ..."
"... The authors of the FA piece want to identify the "Blob" with expert knowledge, but many of the loudest critics of the "Blob" find fault with it because so many policy debates are not informed by genuine country or regional expertise. ..."
A recent defense of the foreign policy establishment is no more successful than the policies its authors supported.
If America's adversaries were made of strawmen, the defenders of the foreign policy "Blob"
would have a foolproof strategy for defeating them. Unfortunately, a recent defense of the U.S.
foreign policy establishment's record is no more successful than the policies that its authors
have supported.
Writing for the Foreign Affairs website last week, Hal Brands, Peter Feaver, and Will
Inboden attempt to
rebut critics of the so-called "Blob," but in their attempt they demonstrate many of the very
flaws in analysis and inability to admit error that their critics have pointed out over the
years. The real record of the U.S. foreign policy establishment over the last thirty years has
been much less impressive than its defenders claim, and it has helped to create many more
avoidable calamities than they admit.
The authors of the FA piece want to identify the "Blob" with expert knowledge, but
many of the loudest critics of the "Blob" find fault with it because so many policy debates are
not informed by genuine country or regional expertise. Think back to the Iraq war debate. On
the pro-war side, there were legions of pundits and politicians that knew little or nothing
about Iraq and the surrounding region. The few historians and specialists they could find to
promote the war were extreme ideologues. On the opposing side, you had the vast majority of
regional experts and trained officials at the State Department. The U.S. invaded Iraq despite
the overwhelming consensus among people that knew the country and region best that it would be
a disaster. War supporters had no use for that expertise because it did not line up with what
they wanted to do. The "Blob" prevailed by overruling and ignoring the experts.
Many prominent foreign policy professionals from both parties jumped on the pro-war
bandwagon because they weren't terribly interested in what the experts had to say and because
backing military action to exercise American "leadership" is what these people usually do. Even
those that didn't really believe the case for war said nothing because it
was politically safer for them to conform. We have seen this happen many other times. The
conventional view endorsed by the "Blob" often has nothing to do with expert knowledge, and it
frequently flies in the face of that expertise.
It would help to start with accurate definitions. What do critics of U.S. foreign policy
mean when we talk about the "Blob"? The term refers in part to the tendency towards groupthink,
aggression, and interference in other countries' affairs among foreign policy pundits and think
tankers. It is a criticism of the reflexive bias towards "action," which almost always involves
advocacy for military options, and the disparagement of diplomatic engagement that usually goes
with it. Members of the "Blob" promote and claim to believe in a number of far-fetched myths
about "credibility" and America's "indispensable" role in the world that provide ready-made
justifications for sanctioning and bombing a long list of other countries. They usually twist
themselves into knots to avoid acknowledging U.S. responsibility for the consequences of our
government's actions, but they are the first to decry American "inaction" when something
unfortunate beyond our control happens on the other side of the world. If one or more of those
things describes you, you might be part of the "Blob."
One of the biggest failings of the "Blob" is its resistance to learning and reevaluating
core assumptions. This is one reason why the U.S. keeps making similar mistakes decade after
decade. The "Blob" not only spreads dangerous myths, but it clings to them all the more
desperately when those myths are discredited by experience. The U.S. can destabilize entire
regions for decades, but they will continue to insist that the U.S. military presence is
"stabilizing" and cannot end. U.S. interventions consistently leave countries in worse shape
than they were in before the U.S. intervened, but that does not lessen their eagerness for the
next intervention.
The authors allow that the "Blob" makes mistakes, but asserts that it "learns from them and
changes course." That is simply not true. The only learning that does seem to take place
concerns how some of the same awful policies get labeled. Advocates for regime change usually
avoid using that phrase now, but they still demand regime change in substance. Supporters of
illegal warfare still advocate for illegal war, but now they call it "restoring deterrence."
Aggressive U.S. policies have predictably led to hostile responses from other states, but the
"Blob" doesn't acknowledge the U.S. role in provoking the responses.
When presented with evidence of groupthink, the authors relabel it as "the wisdom of
professional crowds." When presented with the familiar litany of U.S. foreign policy failures,
they claim that the record is actually successful. When presented with the record of
near-constant use of force since the end of the Cold War, they declare that the U.S. "hardly
ran amok in search of monsters to destroy," and then rattle off a list of countries that the
U.S. didn't attack. You could hardly ask for more of a self-parody of what critics call the
"Blob" than boasting about all of the places that the U.S. could have invaded but didn't. Look
at all that restraint! This is akin to defending an arsonist by pointing to all of the
buildings that he didn't set on fire.
Perhaps biggest flaw in the defense of the "Blob" is the very American-centric habit of
taking credit for all positive post-Cold War developments around the world:
In short, after 1989, the deep global engagement favored by the Blob kept the world moving
forward on a generally positive track, rather than regressing to the historical mean of
tyranny, depression, and war.
How much did post-Cold War U.S. actions contribute to this outcome? Isn't it likely that
much of the world would have been "moving forward" as it did with or without the U.S.? In other
words, how much can the U.S. really take credit for the successes of other nations after the
end of the Cold War? To make the balance come out in their favor, the authors need to claim
that the U.S. deserves credit for almost all of it, but that hardly seems credible.
One of the unintentionally funniest parts of the "Blob" defense is the claim that there is
accountability for failure:
The American foreign policy establishment, finally, is generally more pragmatic than
ideological. It values prudence and security over novelty and creativity. It knows that
thinking outside the box may be useful in testing policy assumptions, but the box is usually
there for a reason, and so reflexively embracing the far-out option is dangerous. Its members
have made many mistakes, individually and collectively, but several features of the system
enforce accountability over time. Foreign policy failures, for example, are politically toxic
and often spur positive change.
This is a bold claim to make when the complete lack of accountability is one of the most
distinctive features of the "Blob." Not only do many of the same failed policies continue on
for decades, but many of the same people that advocated for failed and disastrous policies in
the past keep resurfacing to advocate for new ones. Foreign policy failures should be
toxic, but for some reason they never seem to do any harm to the people responsible for them.
There is almost no political or professional price to be paid for being consistently, horribly
wrong about foreign policy. One reason for this is the network of institutions that employ
former government officials so that people responsible for bad policies never go away. Another
is the reluctance of "Blob" members to enforce accountability among themselves. So long as
someone sticks with the consensus view of the U.S. role in the world, there is virtually
nothing that he or she can do to be expelled from the polite company of the foreign policy
establishment. Stray outside of the narrow confines of that consensus, however, and you will
quickly find yourself persona non grata.
The weakest part of their argument is the attempt to conflate other critics of the "Blob"
with the Trump administration's open hostility to expertise:
How about the critics' third argument, that escaping the influence of the Blob would make
American policy more effective and the country more secure? As it happens, a real-time test
of that proposition has been running for over three years.
This not the first time that defenders of conventional foreign policy have tried to blur the
lines between Trump and some of his staunchest non-interventionist and realist critics, and it
is no more convincing now than it was before. Trump has not governed as a conventional foreign
policy president, but neither has he seriously challenged most of the conventional U.S. role in
the world. Trump has left us with the worst of both worlds in which a largely Blobby foreign
policy has been executed by inexperienced and ignorant officials. When critics attack the
"Blob," we are objecting to the failure to rely on expertise in making policy. The
choice does not have to be between Blobby stagnation and Trumpian incompetence, but it is
unsurprising that defenders of the discredited "Blob" want to keep it that way. about the
author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo
blog . He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World
Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic,
The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
Trump and his team have destroyed US foreign relations. They bully allies and boast to
Americans as their "success".
Americans believe the nonsense - US helped allies before so now they must sacrifice for
US causes without asking any compensation support them with full heart.
Even worse, some even believe the worthless Republican's "American value" is what allies
should sacrifice for. Sorry, they need genuine silver and gold, not your worthless
"value".
Of course, veteran of US diplomats feel sad that the alliance structure built up is
destroyed.
Don't be silly. There was nothing to destroy yet before Trump and his team entered their
offices, due to the destruction thereof having been already brought about by the said
"veteran diplomats".
Jumpin' Jehoshaphat. In their feeble, piteous attempts of relabeling they seem to have
forgotten the ancient arcane art of rebranding. Just read it (bold mine):
the wisdom of professional crowds
Oxymoronic, right? Well, frankly, I'm not sure about "oxy".
The Blob remains in power because the biggest cost of their failures is born by countries
we don't really care about, a small number of volunteer military men, and money that we
borrow. The Blob will remain in power until we squander most of our collective power and we
can no longer inflict their will on others and we become increasingly irrelevant. Until
then it will be very painful to watch.
Which brings me to the Coronavirus outbreak. It easily penetrated our shores and we are
by any honest measure the world leader in number of deaths and economic devastation despite
the fact that the first outbreak did not reach New York until March 1 from Europe. Our
response? We closed travel from the EU on March 15, our Defense establishment convinced
every MSM outlet that Russia, China, and Iran was waging and information war against the
U.S. falsely claiming that we mishandled the situation (we are good a deceiving ourselves,
aren't we), we are gearing up for a Cold War against China, but we were able to get the
Blue Angels to fly over 5 cities on a days notice. Is it too late to take the blue
pill?
You are right regarding the Blob - I would add that most (if not all) of them have zero
skin in the game and I bet that neither of those chickenhawks served in the military.
The War on Iraq provides a most instructive example. Those in foreign policy circles who
knowingly lied, those who knowingly parroted conscious lies, none of these people paid any
price for their lies, not personal or professional. Instead, they were rewarded for being
loyal accomplices.
Those who called out the lies were cast into outer darkness.
Unless and until those responsible for the stupid wars pay a very real and very personal
price for their crimes, nothing will change. For sociopaths learn only from reward and
punishment, but they do learn.
Trump's foreign policy, while based on almost complete ignorance, was light-years ahead of
the blob. In fact the worst of his actions were when he actually believed the blob and/or
did what they wanted. I mean really he hasn't started a war, he actually threatened to
withdraw from Europe if they don't pay for the protection, which at best means NATO is
toast and at worst means the yanks don't subsidize the europeans. What's so bad about his
foreign policy.
Trump has used his veto power three times already - twice to stop US involvement in the
genocidal war on Yemen, and again today to prevent him from making war on Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump has failed twice to pull out of Syria. What a pathetic weaking cuck he
is!
That picture reminds me of a line up, except usually at a line up there is only one truly
guilty party.
Few photographs better symbolize the problem with American foreign policy. At least
Colin Powell showed some redemptive recognition of failure, at least at one time.
I want to push back on the the notion that the State Dept. were on the right side of
history regarding the decision to invade Iraq. Many of those opposed to the war were still
in favor of maintaining the embargo and no-fly zones against Iraq into perpetuity. If the
war's supporters were wrong in proposing a bad solution, many of their opponents were wrong
in offering no solution at all.
Except the status quo.
In fact, this is "The Blob" - the defenders of the status quo, more than anything else.
As Larison observed, the few historians and specialists who supported the Iraq invasion
were extreme ideologues. At the same time, many of them weren't.
"... Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more. The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is. ..."
"... "McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere." ..."
"... The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern. ..."
"... And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country. ..."
"... Note how unprepared the country was to COVID-19 epidemic. Zero strategic thinking as if the next epidemic was not in the cards at least since swine fly ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic_in_the_United_States ). ..."
"... Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning. https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425 ..."
"... Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext, conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch. ..."
Neocon Anne Applebaum has never seen a bed she did not expect to find an evil
Russian lurking beneath. More than a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold
War, she cannot let go of that hysterical feeling that, "The Russians Are Coming, The
Russians Are Coming!" In screeching screed after screeching screech, Applebaum is, like
most neocons, a one trick pony: the US government needs to spend more money to counter
the threat of the month. Usually it's Russia or Putin. But it can also be China, Iran,
Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, etc.
Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Anne Applebaum is a bitter neocon. She is furious that people no longer read the
Washington Post as the authoritative voice of US foreign policy. She has apparently
made a tidy fortune warning us that the Russians are coming, but she wants even more.
The Washington Post still views her as an expert, but the American people, as she
herself complains, are no longer interested in her worn-out fantasies. She is buried in
defense industry funded think tanks and she does the bidding of her masters. Every
intelligent American reader should ridicule her as the propagandist she is.
"McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said
about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump
administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His
aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China,
but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere."
And as a China scholar McMaster is not the best choice either:
McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable
aggressor that can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk.
I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before
he wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He
apparently ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple,
deceptive narrative is more seductive.
-- Michael
likbez, May 7, 2020 6:22 pm
The main thrust here is the US abandoning the world to China and a much weaker Russia. I am calling for
the US to play a much broader role in the world as it has economic and strategic value
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is definitely above my pay grade, but the problem that I see here is that it is very unclear where "a
much broader role in the world" ends and where "imperial overstretch" starts.
The country which spends over trillion dollars on "defense" is by definition an imperial country and its
foreign policy priorities are not that difficult to discern.
And due to well fed MIC which maintains an army of lobbyists and along with FIRE sector controls Capitol
Hill this is a Catch 22 situation (we can't abandon neocon Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine and can't continue
as it will bankrupt the country) which might not end well for the country.
Some experts now claim that this is criminal incompetence on the part of Trump administration. "So, what
does it mean to let thousands die by negligence, omission, failure to act, in a legal sense under international
law?" asked Gonsalves, an assistant professor of epidemiology of microbial diseases at the Yale School of
Public Health, in a tweet Wednesday morning.
https://twitter.com/gregggonsalves/status/1257988303443431425
Please note that Trump campaigned in 2016 on the idea of disengagement from foreign wars and abandoning the
global neoliberal empire built by his predecessors as well as halting neoliberal globalization. That's how he got anti-war independents to vote for him.
And what we got? We got this warmonger McMaster, bombing Syria on false flag chemical attack pretext,
conflict with Russia over North Stream II and Ukraine, and the assassination of Soleimani. Such a bait and switch.
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish – courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western)))
banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic
Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish – courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western)))
banks. It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic
Slav to get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian
"Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate
country.
It's always fun to see the Washington foreign policy and Nat-Sec establishment get up on its
hind legs at their critics. It doesn't happen often, and when it does it's usually when someone
has touched a raw nerve, penetrating the bubble, if only momentarily. One time that comes to
mind is when TAC's Andrew Bacevich -- he's really good at this --
called out elite bubble denizens Peter Feaver and Hal Brands for what he said was "close to
being a McCarthyite smear" against realist thinkers in a Commentarypiece
entitled, "Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists."
The two men (Feaver cut his teeth in George W. Bush's National Security Council during the
height of the Iraq War; Brands is an academic with a perch at the neoconservative AEI) implored
TAC to publish a response, writing: "The stakes of debates about American grand strategy are
high, and so it is entirely proper that these debates be conducted with passion and intensity.
But it is equally vital that they be conducted without resort to the sort of baseless ad
hominem attacks that impede intellectual discourse rather than encouraging it."
Hrumph. It is not surprising now that both Feaver and Brands (joined by William Inboden,
also in Bush's wartime NSC), are at it again, this time with a longer treatise in Foreign
Affairs , entitled, "In Defense of
the Blob." The last four years have been rough for the establishment. President
Trump, after running on a platform of getting out of endless wars, is a Jacksonian who refuses
to hide his contempt for this entrenched policy class and all of their attending courtiers and
courtesans, most of whom are leftovers from the Obama, Bush and even Clinton Administrations.
Their "accumulated" knowledge means nothing to this president, as he has plowed his own
mercurial course in North Korea, Syria, Iran and the Middle East.
If that wasn't bad enough, Trump's rip in the Washington Blob's time-space-continuum has
allowed realists and restrainers to quantum leap into the space like no other administration
before. Suddenly, conservatives of all stripes are talking TAC's language. Money is pouring
into colleges and think tanks now, all with the goal of pursuing approaches outside the status
quo of hyper-militarization and American hegemony. The wars have been largely maligned as
failures of the two previous administrations and their "experts." The Quincy Institute,
populated by scholars from both the Right and Left, has risen up to directly challenge the idea
of a necessary militarized "liberal world order" to secure peace across the globe.
"In Defense of the Blob" is filled with so many straw men, lies, and misdirections that the
only takeaway is that we must have hit one hell of a nerve this time. The authors' peculiar
attempt to gaslight their critics, suggesting that we are seeing things that aren't there, is
weak. Like:
Blob theorists view the establishment as a club of like-minded elite insiders who control
everything, take care of one another, and brush off challenges to conventional wisdom. In
reality, the United States actually has a healthy marketplace of foreign policy ideas.
Discussion over American foreign policy is loud, contentious, diverse, and generally pragmatic
-- and as a result, the nation gets the opportunity to learn from its mistakes, build on its
successes, and improve its performance over time.
No, no, and no. As a reporter in this ecosystem for more years than I care to admit, I can
say with absolute certainty the reality is the opposite. The major policy think tanks in
Washington are rife with three sources of funding: government, private defense companies, and
very wealthy neoliberal and neoconservative foundations ( think
Carnegie on the left , Scaife on the right ). The
National Security and "Grand Strategy" programs at elite schools are no different. They all
have one thing in common: the status quo. As a result, the output is hardly dynamic, it's
little more than dogmatic, conventional thinking about world problems that keep bureaucrats in
jobs and always meddling, the military amped up with more hammers and nails to hit, and
politicians (and attending administrative class) favorable to either or both of these goals in
Washington, preferably in power.
This is a closed club that offers only gradations of diversity just like Democrats and
Republicans during the war: No one argued about "liberating" Iraq, only about the tactics. That
was why it was so easy for Hillary Clinton's Nat Sec team in-waiting to create the Center for a
New American Security in 2008 and transition to an Obama think tank shop in 2009. Plug and play
one for the other, counterinsurgency under Bush? Meh. Under Obama? Let's do this! They all had
a plan for staying in Afghanistan, and they made sure we were, until this day.
This doesn't even include the orbit of research centers like RAND and the Center for Naval
Analysis, which actually get government funding to churn out reports and white papers, teach
officer classes, lead war gaming, and put on conferences. Do you really think they call for
less funding, killing programs, eliminating lily pads, or egads, pulling out of entrenched
strategic relationships that might not make sense anymore? Never. The same players get the
contracts and produce just what the government wants to hear, so they can get more money. If
they don't get contracts they don't survive. It's how the swamp works.
As for it being a cabal? This ecosystem -- the Blob -- is a revolving door of sameness, a
multigenerational in-crowd of status-driven groupthink inhabiting a deep state that is both
physical and of the mind. It's a lifestyle, and a class. To get anywhere in it, you not only
have to have the right pedigree, but the right way of thinking. Ask anyone who has attempted to
break in with the "wrong credentials," or marched off the reservation in the early years of
Iraq only to be flung to the professional margins. Conference panels, sanctioned academic
journals, all run by the same crowd. Check the Council on Foreign Relations yearbook, you'll
catch the drift. You can be a neocon, you can be a "humanitarian" interventionist, but a
skeptic of American exceptionalism and its role in leading the post-WWII international system?
Ghosted.
The worst element of the Feaver/Brands/Inboden protest is not so much their pathetic attempt
to suggest that sure, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya "were misconceived and mishandled,"
but they were "no worse" than failures in the preceding decades, like the "bloody stalemate in
Korea," or "catastrophic war in Vietnam." (This completely denies that the same
consensus thinking has been leading our global and military policies for the last 75 years,
therefore the same people who blundered us into Vietnam were also responsible for backing the
contras in Nicaragua, and then blowing up wedding parties in Pakistan three decades later).
No, the worst is the straw man they present when they suggest that "scrapping
professionalism for amateurism would be a disaster." No one has ever suggested that was on
offer. If anything, there has been every attempt, by TAC and the aforementioned new movements,
to shift new voices -- academics, military strategists, politicians, policy wonks and
journalists -- who represent fresh, outside thinking into the forefront, at the levers of
power, to make a difference. People like Andrew Bacevich, Stephen Walt, Doug Macgregor, Chris
Preble, Mike Desch, are hardly lightweights, but to the Borg, they are antibodies, therefore
amateurs.
But Bacevich, Walt, et. al, did not keep their mouths shut or try to obfuscate the truth
during 18 years of failure in Afghanistan. That was left to the friends and colleagues of our
esteemed Feaver, Brands, and Inboden. They cannot deny the Blob's sins because it's all in
black & white in the
Afghanistan Papers . That's what has really hit a nerve, the raw exposure. Still, they cry,
the Blob is "not the problem," but the "solution." We think not. And we think they protest too
much.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Executive Editor of TAC . Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
Three comments:
1. Great article.
2. When the world will see the back of US troops out of Afghanistan, the way the USSR
troops pulled out, then I'll say that Trump really is different.
3. "As a reporter in this ecosystem for more years than I care to admit". Actually, it
doesn't show...
Most Russians would say that US foreign policy had nothing to do with the collapse of the
Soviet Union. So while not being a failure, it wasn't in any way a victory either. And
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after that country began side drilling into Iraqi reserves
and stealing them. Hussein complained bitterly to the international community, and invaded
only after nothing was done. How was our attack a good thing? We could of just forced the
Kuwaiti's to stop stealing Iraqi oil.
Now wait a minute. The thing is that several narratives could be constructed here. You have
the narrative that you are constructing here (to which usually one starts with the glorious
beginning of how the US defeated the the evil Nazi Germany).
The Cold War I and now the Cold War II is fundamentally the war between the idea that
private property is paramount and the idea that commons/socialized property under the aegis
of the state (preferably the nation state) is preferable. And from this perspective the
Korean war was a draw and Vietnam war was a defeat for the Mammon. Cuba is also a shining
example of the crappy US politics. Then you have the Pinochet dictatorship, installation of
the Shah in 1953, Lumumba's killing and all kind of other shenanigans (i.e. Operation
Gladius in Italy/Europe, etc.).
And I wouldn't call the Yugoslav war a high mark either.
The containment strategy worked initially because all the socialist countries started
from the rubble of WWII, with minimal industrial base and massive population losses. The
stupidity of the containment strategy is brought to light by the evolution of Vietnam after
the war. Things are getting more and more relaxed there. Even Keenan admitted that this
containment thing was/is fundamentally problematic.
Now Cold War II (started by Obama with the TPP that had as its main pillar the
destruction/privatization [for funny US money] of China's SOE) is being pursued as a
continuation of the same basic idea driving CWI, but also because the technological genie
was freed from its bottle. The ugly truth is that the US is really not that good at real,
real competition (see the history of how inefficient and incapable of technological
advancement the US Steel industry is compared with European Steel Industry; but
fundamentally this is a disease of monopolies). US benefited tremendously of the European
conflicts with a massive influx of educated people (i.e. check Einstein) and it still
benefits from all the foreign graduate students (lots of Chinese) that are for research
based academia the the main workhorses. The way medical research cannot be done without the
lab mice, same research in general cannot be conducted without the graduate students.
So, the fact that the US cannot withstand real, real competition (especially after the
hollowing out of the industrial base due to finacialization), really scares the hell out of
ruling elites. So all kind of malevolent narratives of the Manichean sorts are spun out and
fed to hoi polloi.
It is obviously that you and I live in parallel universes though...
Concerning the lack of US competitive prowess and bullying approaches (beside NS2, or
punishing buyers of Russian weapons), fresh from the news:
"Moscow is studying a report published by the US Department of Energy (DOE), which
mentions Washington's intention to squeeze Russia out of nuclear technology markets, the
Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
"We are currently studying the report of the working group on nuclear fuel published by
the US Department of Energy. A significant part of the report is devoted to pushing Russia
and China from the international market for goods and services related to nuclear energy.
Moreover, there is every reason to believe that not only subsidies of the relevant US
industries will be used, but also non-economic methods", the ministry said, responding to a
request for a comment on the report.
In particular, the report outlines a possible strategy of seeking the "adaptation" of
national legislation of some countries in order to ensure the privileged position of US
suppliers with the active participation of Washington, the ministry said. "There is nothing
new here", it added.
Over the past decade, Washington has paid very little attention to the development of
its own nuclear energy, and therefore lags behind leaders in most areas, from uranium
mining to the construction of nuclear reactors and spent nuclear fuel management, the
ministry added.
"Now the US authorities apparently intend to improve the situation", it suggested,
adding that this requires significant financial investments.
In order to achieve it, it is necessary to occupy a significant share of the
international nuclear energy market, and the US administration is well aware that it is
impossible to do this through fair competition in an acceptable time because of the lag,
the ministry said.
"Therefore, Washington intends to use non-economic leverage. Such actions by the United
States raise the question of what the principles of free trade advocated by Washington
stand for and whether, in principle, one should adhere to any rules in relations with a
state that itself does not comply with any rules and changes them in a way that is
beneficial for it at the moment", it concluded.
On 23 April, the US Department of Energy released a report from a nuclear fuel working
group, established by President Donald Trump in July, to "outline a strategy to restore
American nuclear energy leadership", according to the DOE's statement."
Its always funny how the "experts" and "professionals" are those who want to uphold the
status quo. If you hold the opposite view you're a "amateur" or "demagogue".
"What makes you more of an expert than them?"
"I pushed for and oversaw three wars! I have far more experience!"
"The National Security and 'Grand Strategy' programs at elite schools are no different."
I absolutely loved this bit because it's so true. Thank God for Kelley pointing this
out. It's indicative of the broader malaise in higher education; they've become centers for
political indoctrination. If you look at the people that comprise the faculty at these
schools, many of them are establishment heavyweights; Eliot A. Cohen, arch-neoconservative,
is Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, for
example, and served in the Bush administration. By comparison, Stephen Walt has never
served in any administration.
These schools charge unbelievable amounts of money to churn out more Eliot Cohens, more
Samantha Powers, etc. Even the military officers who take a turn in policymaking circles or
serve on a staff somewhere are staunch defenders of the institutions. In fact, the total
lack of intellectual diversity is downright disturbing; it's like brainwashing.
Worst of all? The folks who aren't establishment but still have representation in
policymaking circles are all hardliners! Think Frank Gaffney, Fred Fleitz, so on.
On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the
battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons
pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual
and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.
When the voices against US hegemony and permanent war are loud and taken seriously, then we
can hope for change. But if the same underlying assumptions about the need for military
aggression to "promote democracy," and the targeting of Russia and China as convenient
enemies, are transferred to the "new thinkers," then nothing will change. The question is,
can an aggressive capitalist system, dependent on unlimited growth, survive in a peaceful
world?
When the voices against US hegemony and permanent war are loud and taken seriously, then we
can hope for change. But if the same underlying assumptions about the need for military
aggression to "promote democracy," and the targeting of Russia and China as convenient
enemies, are transferred to the "new thinkers," then nothing will change. The question is,
can an aggressive capitalist system, dependent on unlimited growth, survive in a peaceful
world?
The Bush era foreign policy model is over, its a failed policy and everyone knows it. Obama
didn't have a foreign policy other than appeasement and capitulation.
Trump has a new model, treat foreign policy more like business. Negotiate as is done in
business, the goal is to get what you want and if the other guy gets something he wants
than fine.
Of course the Trump approach derails the entire US State Dept, security council, and all
the media talking heads, so they will oppose it.
Not really true. Trump seems to have a zero sum approach to business, a win/lose attitude
rather than win/win or only some win on the parties. The exit from JPCOA and the maximalist
approach to Iran, the way Austria-Hungary approached Serbia in August 1918, is actual Trump
attitude.
Blobsters are simply prostitute to the military industrial complex. No honesty, no courage required (Courage is replaced with
arrogance in most cases.) Pompeo is a vivid example of this creatures of Washington swamp.
Notable quotes:
"... historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses. ..."
"... In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about. ..."
On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the
battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons
pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual
and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.
This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986
(west pointers). They are well embedded. In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a
distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the
Trumpian moment.
In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,
-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14
One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As
they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one
of the bigger losers)
The US is very good at making enemies and loosing friends, simply due to their treatment of
other nations in the same manner they treat their domestic population.
The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.
This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in
detail:
The gloves are now off as China has called out Pompeo quite correctly saying, "Pompeo an enemy to world
peace" --and we ought to expect more disruptions here at MoA. Here's just one of several
slaps in Pompeo's face:
"The former top intelligence official is steering the US Department of State into becoming
the Central Intelligence Agency. He is playing with fire, making the 21st century an era of
major power confrontation and undermining the foundations for peace. Despite being the chief
diplomat of the US, he totally betrayed the basic responsibility with which he is entrusted
to promote international understanding. He has become the enemy of world peace."
What's most unfortunate is few seem to consult Global Times , as I was rather
surprised this major editorial wasn't already linked. Here's yet another slap:
"Geopolitics cannot dominate the world anymore. Pompeo and his like are desperately
pulling the world backwards. They are unable to handle a diverse and complicated new century
and so they attempt to resume the Cold War. They can only 'realize their ambition' in
polarized confrontation."
And that clearly wasn't enough as yet another slap's delivered in the closing two
sentences:
"Lies may fulfill Pompeo's personal ambition, but they will never accomplish the US dreams
to be "great again." Pompeo is not only a figure harmful to world peace, but also should be
listed as the worst US secretary of state in its history."
Hmm... Don't know if he qualifies as "worst" yet as he must still top Ms. Clinton, but she
certainly didn't treat China as has Pompeo.
I think you have the main danger (some nitwit using a "small nuke") to try to make a point
about right.
Other than that, the impression I get from Pompeo and his ilk is that the main thing is
having someone to threaten and abuse to show "leadership" and "manhood", at least one shitty
little country we can still throw up against the wall and slap around to show we mean
business. Dangerous times for Nicaragua.
Neither he nor his other West Point friends seems to have much clue about military affairs
either, which is strange. I mean we've always had our George Armstrong Custers, but they
didn't run things. Now they seem to have some sort of cult mentality. One is reminded of the
French before WWI: "De L'audace, Encore De L'audace, Et Toujours De L'audace ..." and we know
how that worked out.
With a disgusted look on his face, President Trump replied: "You should have let us
know."
Military Exercise meaning (from Wikipedia): "A military exercise or war game
is the employment of military resources in training for military operations, either exploring
the effects of warfare or testing strategies without actual combat. This also serves the
purpose of ensuring the combat readiness of garrisoned or deployable forces prior to deployment
from a home base."
What is actually going on here? Does the White House care to explain?
*Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this
by hiring incompetent psychopaths who make him legitimately look good by comparison. This is
why he's constantly overruling their worst plans. But once every so often, his incompetent
underlings convince him to do something exceptionally stupid. This is because occasionally
going along with them allows him to feel like a wise, discerning ruler who occasionally
follows his advisors' guidance and occasionally overrules them.
"... the American-led takedown of the post-World War II international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. ..."
"... The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices that the political system does not. ..."
I think this would be very informative for anybody seriously interested in the USA foreign
policy. Listening to him is so sad to realize that instead of person of his caliber we have
Pompous Pompeo, who forever is frozen on the level of a tank repair mechanical engineer, as
the Secretary of State.
Published on Feb 24, 2020
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior.
The combination of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly
disadvantageous to the United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job,
there is a need for America's universities to provide the information and analysis of
international best practices that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson
Institute for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
Defense, ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm),
acting Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at
both Bangkok and Beijing. He began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in
Chinese affairs. (He was the principal American interpreter during President Nixon's visit
to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several
well-received books on statecraft and diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing
Misadventures in the Middle East was published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China,
America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige, appeared in March 2013. America's
Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the most recent revision of The
Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy. He
was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on "diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the
Harvard Law School.
He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than three
decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions,
joint ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other
countries.
He is the author of several books including the most recent
Interesting times: China, America, and the shifting balance of prestige
(2013)
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
These demented human beings are miserable, self seeking failures by any measurement of
dignity. In a way they are possessed with "Full Spectrum Dominance" delution.
tone-deaf, arrogant speech in Munich this
weekend in which he proclaimed that "the West is winning." In the most hypocritical and absurd
section of the speech, Pompeo railed against other states' violations of sovereignty:
Look, this matters. This matters because assaults on sovereignty destabilize. Assaults on
sovereignty impoverish. Assaults on sovereignty enslave. Assaults on sovereignty are, indeed,
assaults on the very freedom that anchors the Western ideal.
Trump administration officials like talking about the importance of sovereignty almost as
much as they enjoy trampling on the sovereignty of other states. The problem with Pompeo's
sovereignty talk is that the U.S. obviously doesn't respect the sovereignty of many countries,
and almost every criticism that he levels against someone else can be turned around against the
U.S. The U.S. daily violates Syrian sovereignty with an illegal military presence. U.S. forces
remain in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi government, and our military has repeatedly
carried out attacks inside Iraq over their government's objections in just the last two months.
The Trump administration respects sovereignty and territorial integrity so much that it has
endorsed illegal Israeli annexation of Syrian territory and it has given a green light to more
annexations in the future. It is now supporting an illegal Turkish incursion into Syria.
Pompeo said at one point:
Respect for sovereignty of nations is a secret of and central to our success. The West is
winning.
As we look back on the record of how the U.S. and our allies have behaved over the last 30
years, respect for other nations' sovereignty is not what we see. On the contrary, there has
been a series of unnecessary and sometimes illegal wars that the U.S. and its allies have waged
either to overthrow a foreign government, or to take sides in an internal conflict, or both.
The U.S. and our allies and the other countries certainly would have been better off if that
hadn't happened. Our recent record is nothing to boast about. It is typical of Pompeo that he
celebrates successes where there aren't any. He says that "the West is winning," but what
exactly have we won? The U.S. is still involved in multiple desultory conflicts, and relations
with many of our most important allies are more strained than at any time since the start of
the Iraq war. If "the West is winning," what would repeated failures look like?
Pompeo calls out economic coercion as one of the harmful things that other states do, but he
is part of an administration that has used economic warfare more than anyone else against more
targets than ever before. If the U.S. refrained from using economic coercion as one of its main
tools in trying to compel other states to do what Washington wants, the attacks on other
states' use of economic coercion might carry some weight. As things stand, Pompeo's words are
just so much wind.
The theme of Pompeo's speech is refuting criticism from allies about how the U.S. is
conducting its foreign policy, but I doubt that many Europeans in the audience were reassured
by his hectoring, triumphalist tone. It doesn't help when he is accusing many of our allies of
being fools and dupes:
When so-called Iranian moderates play the victim, remember their assassination and terror
campaigns against innocent Iranian civilians and right here on European soil itself.
When Russia suggests that Nord Stream 2 is purely a commercial endeavor, don't be fooled.
Consider the deprivations caused in the winters of 2006 and 2008 and 2009 and 2015.
When Huawei executives show up at your door, they say you'll lose out if you don't buy in.
Don't believe the hype.
Needless to say, many of our European allies have very different views on all of these
issues, and berating their position isn't going to make them agree with the Trump
administration's unreasonable demands. Pompeo wants to tout the virtues of sovereignty, but as
soon as our allies take decisions that displease him and Trump he castigates them for it.
Respecting the sovereignty and independence of other states includes respecting their right to
make decisions on policy that our government doesn't like. Of course, Pompeo would rather have
our allies behave like vassals and expects other partners to obey as if they are colonies.
Behind all the sovereignty rhetoric is an unmistakable desire to dictate terms and force others
to do the administration's bidding. The countries that are on the receiving end of this
insufferable arrogance can see through Pompeo's words. All three of those issues touch on areas
where the U.S. insists that our allies abandon their own interests because Washington tells
them to. That is exactly the sort of heavy-handed "leadership" that our allies resent, and
Pompeo's speech will just remind them why they hate it.
This book sheds some light into the story of how Administrative assistants to Present became
independent heavily influenced by CIA body controlling the USA foreign policy and to a large
extent controlling the President. Recent revolt of NSC (Aka Ukrainegate) shows that the servant
became the master
The books contains some interesting information about forming NSC by Truman --- the father of
the US National Security State. And bureaucratic turf war the preceded it. It wwas actually
Eisenhower who created forma position of a "special assistant to the president for national
security affairs"
The author also cover a little bit disastrous decision to launch a "surge" (ironically by the
female chickenhawk Meghan O'Sullivan), -- which attests neocon nature of current NSC and level of
indoctrination of staffers in "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine quite clearly. That's why a
faction of NSC launched a coup d'état against Trump in t he form of Ukrainegate and
probably was instrumental in Russiagate as well.
Notable quotes:
"... Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis, intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September 11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington. ..."
"... Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars. ..."
"... Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course. ..."
"... The NSC common law's kept the peace in Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the bureaucracy and military. ..."
"... ...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches. 13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government policy without accountability. ..."
"... it is no wonder some Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants. ..."
"... Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. ..."
"... ... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government. ..."
"... The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars ahead. ..."
The men and women walking the hushed corridors of the Executive Office Building do not look
like warriors. Most are middle-aged professionals with penchants for dark business suits and
prestigious graduate degrees, who have spent their lives serving their country in windowless
offices, on far-off battle-fields, or at embassies abroad. Before arriving at the NSC, many
joined the military or the nation's diplomatic corps, some dedicated themselves to teaching and
writing about national security, and others spent their days working for the types of
politicians who become presidents. By the time they joined the staff, each had shown the pluck
-- and the good fortune -- required to end up staffing a president.
When each NSC staffer first walks up the steps to the Executive Office Building, he or she
joins an institution like no other in government. Compared to the Pentagon and other
bureaucracies, the staff is small, hierarchically flat with only a few titles like directors
and senior directors reporting to the national security advisor and his or her deputies.
Compared to all those at the agencies, even most cabinet secretaries, the staff are also given
unparalleled access to the president and the discussions about the biggest decisions in
national security.
Yet despite their access, the NSC staff was created as a political, legal, and bureaucratic
afterthought. The National Security Council was established both
to better coordinate foreign policy after World War II and as part of a deal to create what
became known as the Defense Department. Since the army and navy only agreed to be unified under
a single department and a civilian cabinet secretary if each still had a seat at the table
where decisions about war were expected to be made, establishing the National Security Council
was critical to ensuring passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law, as well as its
amendments two years later, unified the armed forces while also establishing the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as the CIA.
... ... ...
Fans of television's the West Wing would be forgiven for expecting that once in the Oval
Office, all a staffer needs to do to change policy is to deliver a well-timed whisper in the
president's car or a rousing speech in his company. It is not that such dramatic moments never
occur, but real change in government requires not just speaking up but the grinding policy work
required to have something new to say.
A staffer, alone or with NSC and agency colleagues, must develop an idea until feasible and
defend it from opposition driven by personal pique, bureaucratic jealousy, or substantive
disagreement, and often all three.
Granted none of these fights are over particularly new ideas, as few proposals in war are
truly novel. If anything, the staffs history is a reminder of how little new there is under the
guise of national security. Alter all, escalations, ultimatums, and counterinsurgency are only
innovative in the context of the latest conflicts. The NSC staff is usually proposing old
ideas, some as old as war itself like a surge of troops, to new circumstances and a critical
moment.
Yet even an old idea can have real power in the right hands at the right time, so it is
worth considering how much more influence the NSC brings to its fights today.
... ... ...
A larger staff can do even more thanks to technology. With the establishment of the
Situation Room in 1961 and its subsequent upgrades, as well as the widespread adoption of email
in the 1980s, the classified email system during the 2000s, and desktop video teleconferencing
systems in the 2010s, White House technology upgrades have been justified because the president
deserves the latest and the fastest. These same advances give each member of the staff global
reach, including to war zones half a world away, from the safety of the Executive Office
Building.
The NSC has also grown more powerful along with the presidency it serves. The White House,
even in the hands of an inexperienced and disorganized president like Trump, drives the
government's agenda, the news media's coverage, and the American public's attention. The NSC
staff can, if skilled enough, leverage the office's influence for their own ideas and purposes.
Presidents have also explicitly empowered the staff in big ways -- like putting them in the
middle of the policymaking process -- and small -- like granting them ranks that put them on
the same level as other agency officials.
Recent staffers have also had the president's ear nearly every day, and sometimes more
often, while secretaries of state and defense rarely have that much face time in the Oval
Office. Each has a department with tens of thousands (and in the Pentagon's case millions) of
employees to manage. Most significantly, both also answer not just to the president but to
Congress, which has oversight authority for their departments and an expectation for regular
updates. There are few more consequential power differences between the NSC and the departments
than to whom each must answer.
Even more, the NSC staff get to work and fight in anonymity. Members of Congress,
journalists, and historians are usually too busy keeping track of the National Security Council
principals to focus on the guys and gals behind the national security advisors, who are
themselves behind the president. Few in Washington, and fewer still across the country, know
the names of the staff advising the president let alone what they arc saying in their memos and
moments with him.
Today, there arc too many unnamed NSC staffers for anyone's good, including their own. Even
with the recent congressional limit on policy staffers, the NSC is too big to be thoroughly
managed or effective. National security advisors and their deputies are so busy during their
days that it is hard to keep up with all their own emails, calls, and reading, let alone ensure
each member of the staff is doing their own work or doing it well. The common law and a de
tacto honor system has also struggled to keep staff in check as they try to handle every issue
from war to women's rights and every to-do list item from drafting talking points to doing
secret diplomacy.
Although many factors contribute to the NSC's success, history suggests they do best with
the right-size job. The answer to better national security policy and process is not a bigger
staff but smaller writs. The NSC should focus on fewer issues, and then only on the smaller
stuff, like what the president needs for calls and meetings, and the big, what some call grand
strategic, questions about the nation's interests, ambitions, and capacities that should be
asked and answered before any major decision.
... ... ...
Along the way, the staff has taken on greater responsibilities from agencies like the
departments of state and defense as each has grown more bureaucratic and sclerotic.
Starting in the 1960s, the NSC dethroned the State Department in providing analysis,
intelligence, and even some diplomacy to the diplomat in chief. In the years after September
11th, the staff also began to take greater responsibility, especially for planning, from the
military and the rest of the Pentagon. Both departments have struggled and often failed to
reclaim lost ground and influence in Washington.
As a result, today the NSC has, regretfully, become the strategic engine of the government's
national security policymaking. The staff, along with the national security advisor, determine
which issues -- large and small -- require attention, develop the plans for most of them, and
try to manage day-to-day the implementation of each strategy. That is too sweeping a remit for
a couple hundred unaccountable staffers sitting at the Executive Office Building thousands of
miles from war zones and foreign capitals. Such immense responsibility also docs not make the
best use of talent in government, leaving the military and the nation's diplomats fighting with
the White House over policies while trying to execute plans they have less and less ownership
over.
... ... ...
Although protocol still requires members of the NSC to sit on the backbench in National
Security Council meetings, the staff s voice and advice can carry as much weight as those of
the principals sitting at the table, just as the staff has taken on more of each department's
responsibilities, the NSC arc expected to be advisors to the president, even on military
strategy. With that charge, the staff has taken to spending more time and effort developing
their own policy ideas -- and fighting for them.
Yet war is a hard thing to try to manage from the Executive Office Building. Thousands
of miles from the frontlines and far from harm, the NSC make recommendations based on what they
come to know from intelligence reports, news sources, phone calls, video-teleconferences, and
visits to the front. Even with advice based only on this limited and limiting view, the NSC
staff has transformed how the United States fights its wars.
The American way of war, developed over decades of thinking and fighting, informs how and
why the nation goes to battle. Over the course of American history and, most relevantly, since
the end of World War II, the US military and other national security professionals have
developed, often through great turmoil, strategic preferences and habits, like deploying the
latest technology possible instead of the largest number of troops. Despite the tremendous
planning that goes into these most serious of undertakings, each new conflict tests the
prevailing way of war and often finds it wanting.
Even knowing how dangerous it is to relight the last war, it is still not easy to find the
right course for a new one. Government in general and national security specifically are
risk-averse enterprises where it is often simpler to rely on standard operating procedures and
stay on a chosen course, regardless of whether progress is slow and the sense of drift is
severe. Even then, many in the military, who often react to even the mildest of suggestions and
inquiries as unnecessary or even dangerous micromanagement, defend the prevailing approach with
its defining doctrine and syndrome.
As Machiavelli recommended long ago, there is a need for hard questions in government and
war in particular. He wrote that a leader "ought to be a great askcr, and a patient hearer of
the truth." 7 From the Executive Office Building, the NSC staff, who are more
distanced from the action as well as the fog of war, have tried to fill this role for a busy
and often distracted president. They are, however, not nearly as patient as Machiavelli
recommended: they have proven more willing, indeed too willing at times, to ask about what is
working and what is not.
Warfighters are not alone in being frustrated by questions: everyone from architects to
zookeepers believes they know how best to do their job and that with a bit more time, they will
get it right. Without any of the responsibility for the doing, the NSC staff not only asks hard
questions but, by avoiding implementation bias, is willing to admit, often long before those in
the field, that the current plan is failing. A more technologically advanced NSC, with the
ability to reach deep into the chain of command and war zones for updates, has also given the
staff the intelligence to back up its impatience.
Most times in history, the NSC staff has correctly predicted that time is running against a
chosen strategy. Halperin. and others on the Nixon NSC, were accurate in their assessments of
Vietnam. Dur and his Reagan NSC colleagues were right to worry that diplomacy was moving too
slowly in Lebanon. Haass and Vershbow were correct when they were concerned with how windows of
opportunity for action were shrinking in the Gulf and Balkans respectively, just as O'Sullivan
was right that things needed to change relatively soon in Iraq.
Yet an impatient NSC staff has a worse track record giving the president answers to what
should come next. The NSC staff naturally have opinions and ideas about what can be done when
events and war feel out of control, but ideas about what can be done when events and war feel
out of control, but the very distance and disengagement that allow' the NSC to be so effective
at measuring progress make its ideas less grounded in operational realities and more clouded by
the fog of Washington. The NSC, often stridently, wants to do something more, to "go big when
wc can," as one recent staffer encouraged his president, to fix a failing policy or win a w
r ar, but that is not a strategy, nor does that ambition make the staff the best
equipped to figure out the next steps."
With their proposals for a new plan, deployment, or initiative, the staff has made more bad
recommendations than good. The Diem coup and the Beirut mission are two examples, and
particularly tragic ones at that, of NSC staff recommendations gone awry. The Iraq surge was
certainly a courageous decision, but by committing so many troops to that country, the manpower
w r as not available for a war in Afghanistan that was falling off track. Even the
more successful NSC recommendations for changes in US strategy in the Gulf War and in Bosnia
did not end up exactly as planned, in part because even good ideas in war rarely do.
Although presidents bear the ultimate responsibilities for these decisions, the NSC
staff played an essential, and increasing, role in the thinking behind each bold move. In
conflict after conflict, a more powerful NSC staff has fundamentally altered the American way
of war. It is now far less informed by the perspective of the military and the view from the
frontlines. It is less patient for progress and more dependent on the clocks in the Executive
Office Building and Washington than those in theater. It is far more combative, less able to
accept defeat, and more willing to risk a change of course.
And it is characterized by more frequent and counterproductive friction between the civilian
and military leaders.
... ... ...
Through it all, as the NSC's voice has grown louder in the nation's war rooms, the staff has
transformed how Washington works, and more often does not work. The NSC's fights to change
course have had another casualty: the ugly collapse of the common law' that has governed
Washington policymaking for more than a generation. The result today is a government that
trusts less, fights more, and decides much slower.
National security policy- and decision-making was never supposed to be a fair fight. Eliot
Cohen, a civil-military scholar with high-level government experience, has called the
give-and-take of the interagency process an "unequal" dialogue -- one in which presidents are
entitled to not just make the ultimate decision but also to ask questions, often with the NSC's
help, at any time and about any topic.* Everyone else, from the secretaries of state and
defense in Washington dow r n to the commanders and ambassadors abroad, has to
expect and tolerate such presidential interventions and then carry out his orders.
Even an unfair fight can have rules, however. The NSC common law's kept the peace in
Washington for years after Iran-Contra. The restrictions against outright advocacy and outsized
operational responsibilities were accepted by those at the White House as well as in the
agencies during Republican and Democratic administrations. Yet as many in Washington believed
the world grew more interconnected and the national security stakes increased, especially after
September 11th, a more powerful NSC has given staffers the opportunity to bend, and
occasionally break, the common laws, as they have been expected to and allowed to take on more
responsibilities for developing strategies and new r ideas from those in the
bureaucracy and military.
... ... ...
...Meanwhile, others, including the anonymous author of the infamous September 2018 New
York Times opinion piece, believe government officials who comprise a "steady state" amid
Trump's chaotic presidency are "unsung heroes" resisting his worst instincts and overreaches.
13 Thus, it is no surprise that more and more Americans are concerned: a 2018 poll
found that 74 percent of Americans feel a group of officials arc able to control government
policy without accountability.
In an era when Americans can see on reality television how their fish are caught, meals arc
cooked, and businesses are financed, it is strange that few have ever heard the voice of an NSC
staffer. The Executive Office Building is not the only building out of reach: most of the
government taxpayers' fund is hard, and getting harder, to see. With bigger security blockades,
longer waits on declassification, and more severe crackdowns on leaks, it is no wonder some
Americans have taken to assuming the worst of their public servants.
The American people need to know the NSC's war stories if for no other reason than each
makes clear that there is no organized deep state in Washington. If one existed, there would be
little need for the NSC to fight so hard to coordinate the government's various players and
parts. However, this history also makes plain that though the United States can overcome bad
decisions and survive military disasters, a belief in a deep state is a threat to the NSC and
so much more.
... ... ...
Each member of the NSC staff needs to remember that their growing, unaccountable power
has helped give evidence to the worries about a deep state. Although no one in Washington gives
up influence voluntarily, the staff, even its warriors, need to remember it is not just what
they fight for but whether a fight is necessary at all. Shortcuts and squabbles may make
sense when every second feels like it counts, but the best public servants do what is necessary
for the president even as they protect, for years to come, the health of the institutions and
the very democracy in which they serve. As hard as that can be to remember when the clock in
the Oval Office is ticking, doing things the right way is even more important than the latest
crises, war, or meeting with the president.
... ... ...
... Too many in Washington, including at the Executive Office Building, have forgotten
that public service is a privilege that bestows on them great responsibility. Although the NSC
has long justified its actions in the name of national security, the means with which its
members have pursued that objective have made for a more aggressive American way of war, a more
fractious Washington, and more conspiracies about government.
Centuries ago, Plato argued that civilians must hope for warriors who could be trusted to be
both "gentle to their own and cruel to their enemies." At a time when many doubt government and
those who serve in it, the NSC staff s history demonstrates just what White House warriors arc
capable of. The question is for what and for whom they will fight in the years and wars
ahead.
... ... ...
The legendary British double agent Kim Philby wrote: "just because a document is a document
it has a glamour which tempts the reader to give it more weight than it deserves An hour of a
serious discussion with a trustworthy informant is often more valuable than any number of
original documents. Of course, it is best to have both."
A must-read for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. Gans pulls back the
curtain on arguably the most powerful yet opaque body in foreign policy decision-making,
the National Security Council. Each chapter recounts a different administration -- as told
through the work of an NSC staffer. Through these beautifully-written portraits of largely
unknown staffers, Gans reveals the chilling, outsized influence of this small, unelected
institution on American war and peace. From this perspective, even the policy success
stories seem more luck than skill -- leaving readers concerned about the NSC's continued
unchecked power.
Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering
conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with
Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his
praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's
intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It
was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with
Iran for decades," Carlson
said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Even After the Afghanistan Papers, the Washington 'Blob' Still Embraces Staying Forever
January 30, 2020 Written by Mark Perry
Share Copy
Print
James Clad, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia, remembers the exact
moment, back in 2001, when he learned that the U.S. had invaded Afghanistan. As chance would
have it, he was in a meeting with a dozen or so South Asia experts at the Council on Foreign
Relations. "It was in early October of 2001," he recalls, "and word came that U.S. warplanes
had attacked three Afghan cities. Well, you could have heard a pin drop. I looked around the
room and everyone was studying their shoes. And I thought, 'well, this isn't going to work.'
And we all knew it. All of us. This was going to be a morass."
Clad wasn't alone in his thinking. In the wake of the December 9 publication of the
Afghanistan Papers in the Washington Post, retired CIA officer Robert Grenier, who ran
covert operations in support of the 2001 U.S. intervention, reflected on the papers' key
finding – that U.S. officials lied about the 18-year campaign, hiding "unmistakable
evidence" that the Afghan war had become unwinnable. "Frankly, it strikes me as weird that
people should only be waking up to this now," he told me. "The Washington Post series doesn't
convey anything which those who've been watching with even moderate attention should long since
have understood."
Which may be why the papers, comprising some 2000-plus pages of interviews with generals,
diplomats, aid workers and Afghan officials conducted by SIGAR, the Pentagon's Office of the
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, landed with a thud – "a
bombshell that has yet to explode," as one commenter described it
. For good reason: celebrated as a second Pentagon Papers (the 1971 documents that bared the
lies of the Vietnam War) the Afghanistan revelations didn't actually reveal anything that
foreign policy officials, or the American people, didn't already know: that the U.S. was not
winning and could not win in Afghanistan, that senior U.S. diplomats and U.S. military
commanders knew this soon after the 2001 intervention, that the hundreds of billions of dollars
spent to build a responsive Afghan government was squandered, misspent, diverted or stolen, and
that officials consistently misled the American people about the prospects for victory in the
war – promoting optimistic assessments in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.
"In news conferences and other public appearances," the Post report noted, "those in charge
of the war have followed the same talking points for 18 years. No matter how the war is going
– and especially when it is going badly – they emphasized how they are making
progress." Among the most outspoken critics quoted by the papers is retired Lt. Gen. Douglas
Lute, who served as the Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama years. "We were devoid of a
fundamental understanding of Afghanistan – we didn't know what we were doing," Lute told
SIGAR officials in an
oft-quoted judgment . "What are we trying to do here? We didn't have the foggiest notion of
what we were undertaking."
In truth, the big "reveal" of the Afghanistan Papers came after their release, when most of
official Washington reacted to their publication with a collective shrug. Despite this, though
not surprisingly, while the State Department and White House remained silent on the
revelations, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley
rejected the claim that officials had purposely misled the public about the war. "I know
there's an assertion out there of some sort of coordinated lie over the course of 18 years,"
Milley
told reporters . "I find that a bit of a stretch. More than a bit of a stretch, I find that
a mischaracterization." Optimistic reports on the war in Afghanistan, he argued, were "honest
assessments" that were "never intended to deceive the Congress or the American people." While
Milley's response was unusually strident, it was not a surprise for most Pentagon reporters,
many of whom knew that senior military officers and Pentagon policy makers were carefully
studying proposals that would keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan for at least the next five years
– if not longer.
Among these is a paper authored by Michael O'Hanlon, the high profile Foreign Policy
Director of Research at the influential Brookings Institution. Entitled "5,000 Troops for 5
Years," O'Hanlon's offering was previewed in an op-ed in The Hill in late October, presented
formally by Brookings officials on the same day as the Post published the Afghanistan Papers,
then circulated to a wider audience in an O'Hanlon-authored
op-ed in USA Today on January 3. O'Hanlon provides a less outspoken critique of the Post
story than Milley (calling it "badly misleading" and arguing that U.S. officials "have been
consistently and publicly realistic about the difficulty of making progress" in the war), while
acknowledging the "limits of the possible" in a "beleaguered and weak country." Even so,
O'Hanlon says in taking issue with the Post report, the Afghanistan mission "has not been an
abject failure" because, as he argues, the Afghan government "continues to hold all major and
midsize cities" and the U.S. has "not again been attacked by a group that plotted or organized
its aggression from within Afghan borders."
O'Hanlon concedes that while these are modest accomplishments, they are sustainable "at a
far lower cost in blood and treasure than before." Here then, is O'Hanlon's payoff: "The United
States needs a policy that recognizes Afghanistan for what it is – a significant, but not
a top-tier, U.S. strategic interest – and builds a plan accordingly. That overall
strategy should still seek peace, but its modest military element should be steady and stable,
and not set to a calendar. Roughly 5,000 troops for at least five years could be the crude
mantra."
O'Hanlon's proposal has gained traction among a number of senior military officers who are
frustrated with a war that drains military assets and erodes readiness, but who are loathe to
concede Afghanistan to the Taliban – an outcome they believe is certain to follow a full
U.S. withdrawal. Then too, O'Hanlon confirms, his proposal reflects the thinking of a large
swath of Washington's foreign policy community. "I think I am codifying and encapsulating and
distilling the wisdom of a lot of people here, with a couple of my own twists," he told me in
response to a series of questions I posed to him in an email exchange. "I think the chances of
something like this [being adopted] are therefore pretty good."
Indeed, the O'Hanlon proposal seems to have something for everyone: it foregoes the large
nation building expenditures that have characterized the U.S. intervention ($7 billion to $8
billion each year – "not trivial, but only 1 percent of the defense budget"), it
maintains enough military capacity to check the growth of ISIS or al-Qaeda (the U.S. would
maintain "two or three major airfields and hubs of operations" in the country), it allows time
for the U.S. to put in place a more effective Afghan military presence (O'Hanlon provides five
specific recommendations on how this can be done), it signals the Taliban that the U.S. will
not leave the country out of frustration (that they cannot simply "stall for time"), and
perhaps most crucially, it gelds the controversy surrounding the conflict by taking it out of
public view: "By laying out a plan designed to last for several years," O'Hanlon writes,
"Washington would be avoiding the drama and the huge consumption of policy bandwidth associated
with annual Afghanistan policy reviews that have typified the late Obama and early Trump
years." Which is to say:
maintaining a presence in Afghanistan at 5,000 troops ("I'd rather see 5,000 as a rough goal
not a formal or legislated ceiling or floor," O'Hanlon says) over an extended period takes the
war off the nation's front pages – it regularizes the U.S. deployment at an acceptable
cost (that's what sustainable means) and it makes the war in Afghanistan publicly
palatable.
If any of this sounds familiar, it's because it is. "5,000 Troops for 5 Years" seemingly
institutionalizes what then-Afghan commander General David Petraeus called "Afghanistan Good
Enough" in August of 2010: "This isn't to say that there's any kind of objective of turning
Afghanistan into Switzerland in three to five years or less," he said at the time. "Afghan good
enough is good enough." At the time, any number of pundits predicted that the Petraeus
statement would come back to haunt him, but his mantra has been adopted by senior military
officers who cite the O'Hanlon paper as a means of, if not exactly winning the Afghanistan war,
at least not losing it – if victory isn't possible, they argue, then "good enough" is
next best. Or, as one senior military officer told me, the O'Hanlon proposal recasts the
political calculus of Vermont Senator George Aiken on Vietnam, who said that the U.S. should
"declare victory and get out." In this case, the officer said, O'Hanlon is proposing that "the
U.S. declare a stalemate and stay in."
The O'Hanlon proposal details what has been quietly talked about in military circles for the
last decade, but was given credence in a monograph written by retired Army Colonel David
Johnson ("Doing What You Know") published in 2017. Johnson, whose paper circulated widely in
Army circles, argues that "good enough" might well be the most appropriate model for fighting
counter-insurgencies – a form of warfare that has traditionally been outside of the U.S.
military's "strategic culture." In these conflicts, what Johnson calls a "least bad outcome"
might be all that the U.S. military should expect. In Afghanistan, this means accepting limits
to success. "In Afghanistan, what is good enough is a government that can successfully protect
itself and take the fight to the Taliban with minimal U.S. support," Johnson wrote. "Whether
the Kabul government is corrupt or not representative is secondary to its ability to prevent
Afghanistan from again becoming a terrorist haven. That would be good enough."
That this model might well be adopted in Afghanistan (and in Iraq), and in any of the other
"grey zone" conflicts of the Middle East, is no longer at issue. The model is already in place,
while O'Hanlon's 5000 Troops for 5 Years is fast becoming a reality. But the adoption of the
program has come at a price – in Afghan lives. While the U.S. has continued to withdraw
troops from Afghanistan, it has escalated its air campaign against the Taliban (U.S. aircraft
dropped 7423 bombs on Afghanistan in 2019 – more than any other year), thereby embracing
a strategy that allows U.S. deployments to remain in place, but without the consequent
escalation in U.S. casualties. ("More U.S. troops die in training accidents than in Afghanistan
so, you know, there's that," a senior military officer told me.) Meanwhile, Afghan civilian
casualties have spiked, reaching unprecedented levels in the period of July to September of
2019. That trend is likely to continue.
And so, the results of the Washington Post's publication of the Afghanistan Papers
"bombshell" in December have now come sharply into focus: Afghanistan is off the nation's front
pages, American casualties are "sustainable," the war continues – and, ironically, the
chances for ending it are now even more remote than before the Post published its
revelations.
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
Daniel
Larison
We saw how Mike Pompeo
made a
fool of himself
on Friday with his angry tirade against Mary Louise Kelly, a reporter for NPR. That outburst came
after an interview that he cut short in which he was asked legitimate questions that he could not answer. His response
to the report about this was to malign the reporter with bizarre lies in what could be the most unhinged statement ever
sent out by an American Secretary of State:
Official response from Pompeo about his NPR interview. Haven't seen anything like this before
with a State Department seal on it:
pic.twitter.com/Hi1P18ZS0A
Pompeo's accusatory statement confirmed the substance of what Kelly had reported, and absolutely no one believes him
when he says that she lied to him. All of the available evidence
supports
Kelly's account, and nothing supports Pompeo's:
On the program, Ms. Kelly said Katie Martin, an aide to Mr. Pompeo who has worked in press relations, never asked
for that conversation to be kept off the record, nor would she have agreed to do that.
Mr. Pompeo's statement did not deny Ms. Kelly's account of obscenities and shouting. NPR said Saturday that Ms.
Kelly "has always conducted herself with the utmost integrity, and we stand behind this report." On Sunday, The New
York Times obtained emails between Ms. Kelly and Ms. Martin that showed Ms. Kelly explicitly said the day before the
interview that she would start with Iran and then ask about Ukraine. "I never agree to take anything off the table,"
she wrote.
It is the new definition of chutzpah for Pompeo to accuse someone else of lying and lack of integrity, since he has
been daily
shredding his
credibility
by
making things up
about non-existent U.S. policy successes and telling
easily refuted
lies
about
North
Korea
,
Iran
,
Yemen
, and
Saudi Arabia
. We have
good reason to believe
that the
recent claim that there was an "imminent attack" from Iran earlier this month was
another one of those lies
.
For her part, Kelly has a reputation for solid and reliable reporting, and no one thinks that she would do the things he
accuses her of doing. Pompeo's dig at the end is meant to imply that she misidentified Ukraine on the blank map that he
had brought in to test her. No one believes that claim, either. This is another preposterous lie that tells us that his
version of events can't be true. Pompeo has been
waging a war on the truth
for
the last year and a half, and this is just the most recent assault. The Secretary's meltdown this weekend has been
useful in making it impossible to ignore this any longer.
Literally nobody thinks Mike Pompeo is telling the truth about this, or anything. He works for
Donald Trump, who also lies about everything, always.
https://t.co/yTzZDZl5Gw
All of this is appalling, unprofessional behavior from any government official, and in a sane administration this
conduct along with his other false and misleading statements would be grounds for resignation. When Pompeo publicly
attacks a journalist for doing her job and impugns her integrity to cover up for the fact that he doesn't have any, he
is attacking the press and undermining public accountability. He is also undermining the department's advocacy for
freedom of the press when he tries to intimidate journalists with his obnoxious outbursts. Pompeo already alienated and
disgusted people in his department with his failure to come to the defense of officials that were being publicly
attacked and smeared, and this latest display has further embarrassed them. We need a Secretary of State who isn't a
serial liar, and right now we don't have one.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
.
He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
"... Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship with a weak partner government like this? ..."
"... The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up making the Ukrainian government's argument for them ..."
"... To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy. It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do. ..."
"... These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the problem. ..."
"... Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S. security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course, our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security. ..."
ormer ambassador William Taylor wrote an op-ed on Ukraine in
an attempt to answer Pompeo's question about whether Americans care about Ukraine. It is not
very persuasive. For one thing, he starts off by exaggerating the importance of the conflict
between Russia and Ukraine to make it seem as if the U.S. has a major stake in the outcome:
Here's why the answer should be yes: Ukraine is defending itself and the West against
Russian attack. If Ukraine succeeds, we succeed. The relationship between the United States
and Ukraine is key to our national security, and Americans should care about Ukraine.
Taylor exaggerates what the conflict is about by saying that Ukraine is defending "the
West." That's not true. Ukraine is defending itself. The U.S. does not have a vital interest in
this conflict, but Taylor talks about it as if we do. He says that the relationship with
Ukraine is "key" to our national security, but that is simply false. To say that it is key to
our national security means that we are supposed to believe that it is crucially important to
our national security. That suggests that U.S. national security would seriously compromised if
that relationship weakened, but that doesn't make any sense. We usually don't even talk about
our major treaty allies this way, so what justification is there for describing a relationship
with a weak partner government like this?
The op-ed reads like a textbook case of clientitis, in which a former U.S. envoy ends up
making the Ukrainian government's argument for them. The danger of exaggerating U.S. interests
and conflating them with Ukraine's is that we fool ourselves into thinking that we are acting
out of necessity and in our own defense when we are really choosing to take sides in a conflict
that does not affect our security. This is the kind of thinking that encourages people to spout
nonsense about "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." If we view
Ukraine as "the front line" of a larger struggle, that will also make it more difficult to
resolve the conflict. When a local conflict is turned into a proxy fight between great powers,
the local people will be the ones made to suffer to serve the ambitions of the patrons. Once
the U.S. insists that its own security is bound up with the outcome of this conflict, there is
an incentive to be considered the "winner," but the reality is that Ukraine will always matter
less to the U.S. than it does to Russia.
If this relationship were so important to U.S. security, how is it that the U.S. managed to
get along just fine for decades after the end of the Cold War when that relationship was not
particularly strong? As recently as the Obama administration, our government did not consider
Ukraine to be important enough to supply with weapons. Ukraine was viewed correctly as
being of
peripheral interest to the U.S., and nothing has changed in the years since then to make it
more important.
Taylor keeps repeating that "Ukraine is the front line" in a larger conflict between Russia
and the West, but that becomes true only if Western governments choose to treat it as one. He
concludes his op-ed with a series of ideological assertions:
To support Ukraine is to support a rules-based international order that enabled major
powers in Europe to avoid war for seven decades. It is to support democracy over autocracy.
It is to support freedom over unfreedom. Most Americans do.
These make for catchy slogans, but they are lousy policy arguments. This rhetoric veers
awfully close to saying that you aren't on the side of freedom if you don't support a
particular policy option. In my experience, advocates for more aggressive measures use rhetoric
like this because the rest of their argument isn't very strong. It is possible to reject
illegal military interventions of all governments without wanting to throw weapons at the
problem.
Taylor has set up the policy argument in such a way that there seems to be no choice, but
the U.S. doesn't have to support Ukraine's war effort. He oversells Ukraine's importance to the
U.S. to justify U.S. support, because an accurate assessment would make the current policy of
arming their government much harder to defend. Ukraine isn't really that important to U.S.
security and our security doesn't require us to provide military assistance to them. Of course,
our government has chosen to do it anyway, but this is just one more optional entanglement that
the U.S. could have avoided without jeopardizing American or allied security.
How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress
pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo
Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0
SHARES
Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over
the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his
character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors
out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure
Ukraine.
That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo
launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about
whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch.
House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas
and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that
Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to
Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with
Yovanovitch for "a price."
Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things
Considered")
After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch,
whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done
what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.
Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room,
telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder,
so they could have more privacy.
Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant",
repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing
that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.
"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.
The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank
map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.
"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.
Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.
The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress
that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show
some support for Yovanovitch.
Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found
here .
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked
some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and
now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of
problems here or paying off the national debt?
The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would
clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags
they are gypsies and grifters...
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You
may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a press conference with U.S. President Donald J. Trump during the
NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels on July 12, 2018. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)
January 24, 2020
|
9:21 pm
Daniel Larison
Mike Pompeo has proven to be a
blowhard and a bully
in his role as Secretary of State, and nothing seems to bother him more than challenging questions
from professional journalists. All of those flaws and more were on display during and after his interview with NPR's Mary
Louise Kelly today. After abruptly ending the
interview
when pressed on his failure to defend members of the Foreign Service, Pompeo then threw a fit and berated the
reporter who asked him the questions:
Immediately after the questions on Ukraine, the interview concluded. Pompeo stood, leaned in and silently glared at
Kelly for several seconds before leaving the room.
A few moments later, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department
without a recorder. The aide did not say the ensuing exchange would be off the record.
Inside the room, Pompeo shouted his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives,
according to Kelly, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He then said, "People will hear about this."
People are certainly hearing about it, and their unanimous judgment is that it confirms Pompeo's reputation as an
obnoxious, thin-skinned excuse for a Secretary of State. Kelly's questions were all reasonable and fair, but Pompeo is not
used to being pressed so hard to give real answers. We have seen his short temper and condescension before when other
journalists have asked him tough questions, and he seems particularly annoyed when the journalists calling him out are
women. Pompeo probably has the worst working relationship with the press of any Secretary of State in decades, and this
episode will make it worse.
When Pompeo realized he wouldn't be able to get away with his standard set of vacuous talking points and lies, he ended
the conversation. The
entire
interview
is worth reading to appreciate how poorly Pompeo performs when he is forced to explain how failing
administration policies are "working." When pressed on his untrue claims that "maximum pressure" on Iran is "working," all
that he could do was repeat himself robotically:
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: How?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: Sanctions?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
Kelly refused to accept pat, meaningless responses, and she kept insisting that Pompeo provide something, anything, to
back up his assertions. This is how administration officials should always be interviewed, and it is no surprise that the
Secretary of State couldn't handle being challenged to back up his claims. The questions wouldn't have been that hard to
answer if Pompeo were willing to be honest or the least bit humble, but that isn't how he operates. He sees every interview
as an opportunity to snow the interviewer under with nonsense and to score points with the president, and giving honest
answers would get in the way of both.
The section at the end concerned Pompeo's failure to stand up for State Department officials, especially Marie
Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Since Pompeo's support for these officials has been abysmal, there was
nothing substantive that he could say about it and tried to filibuster his way out of it. To her credit, Kelly was
persistent in trying to pin him down and make him address the issue. He had every chance to explain himself, but instead he
fell back on defensive denials that persuade no one:
QUESTION: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on
this team.
QUESTION: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so; I
appreciate that.
Pompeo could have defended Yovanovitch and other officials that have come under attack, but to do that would be to risk
Trump's ire and it would require him to show the slightest bit of courage. In the end, his "swagger" is all talk and his
rhetoric about supporting his "team" at State is meaningless. Pompeo made a fool of himself in this interview, and it is
perfectly in keeping with his angry, brittle personality that he took out his frustrations by yelling at the reporter who
exposed him as the vacuous blowhard that he is.
about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at
TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox
Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
. He
holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to
find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and
commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."
I don't suppose we are ever likely to
see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.
It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and
stealing, and making a guess based on that.
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom.
Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their
despicable behavior.
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can
always
get worse. There is no bottom, for to
have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the
Capo di Tutti Capi
for
blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
I'm sorry, is the "conservative" in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like
liberal democrats. Never been here before, won't be coming back.
Oh, and you forgot about the part where
Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to
a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting
journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.
To the person who down voted me, I don't care. Honestly I'm glad you butthurt whiners have a place to
share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you're lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all
rejoice that "decency" is back, or something.
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe
the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he
wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he
won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air
anyway.
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are
confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer
transitioned to a new topic."
Oh, the humanity!
Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we
agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?
Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
Italicized/bold
text was excerpted from the website
www.dni.gov
within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
ANSWER:
Key Judgements
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we
also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop
nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to
suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website
fas.org
a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:
Page 53, 2nd paragraph -
Iran's Nuclear Program: Status
Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He
testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community "continue[s] to assess that Iran is not
currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear
device." Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons
program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the "U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that
Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce
a nuclear device." Any decision to produce nuclear weapons "will be made by the Supreme Leader," Clapper
stated in April 2013.
"... Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers. ..."
Martin Indyk: An Important Neoliberal Defects From the Blob
Let's hope the former ambassador's heresy about withdrawing from the Middle East catches
fire and spreads. Then-VP of Brookings Martin Indyk in 2017. (Sharon Farmer/sfphotoworks)
January 22, 2020
|
12:01 am
Andrew
J. Bacevich Within the inner precincts of the American foreign policy establishment, last
names are redundant. At a Washington cocktail party, when some half-sloshed AEI fellow
whispers, "Apparently, Henry is back in Beijing to see Xi," there's no need to ask, "Which
Henry?" In that world, there is only one Henry, at least only one who counts.
Similarly, there is only one Martin. While Martin Indyk may not equal Henry Kissinger in
star power, he has for several decades been a major player in U.S. policy regarding Israel and
the Middle East more broadly. Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, senior
director on the National Security Council, twice U.S. ambassador to Israel, assistant secretary
of state for Near East affairs, presidential envoy -- not a bad resume for someone who was born
in London, raised in Australia, and became a U.S. citizen only in his 40s.
Throughout his career, Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace
process" and in the proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that
process to a successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United
States has vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability
and the well-being of the people living there dependent on the United States exercising what
people in Washington call "leadership." In this context, of course, leadership tends to be a
euphemism for the use or threatened use of military power.
These are, of course, establishment notions, to which all members of the "Blob" necessarily
declare their fealty. Indeed, at least until Trump came along, to dissent from such views was
to become ineligible for appointment to even a mid-level post in the State Department, the
Pentagon, or the White House.
Yet Martin has now publicly recanted.
In an extraordinary op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal (of all places), he
asserts that "few vital interests of the US continue to be at stake in the Middle East."
Policies centered on ensuring the free flow of Persian Gulf oil and the survival of Israel have
become superfluous. "The US economy no longer relies on imported petroleum," he correctly
notes. "Fracking has turned the US into a net oil and natural-gas exporter." As a consequence,
Persian Gulf oil "is no longer a vital interest -- that is, one worth fighting for. Difficult
as it might be to get our heads around the idea, China and India need to be protecting the sea
lanes between the Gulf and their ports, not the US Navy."
As for the Jewish State, Martin notes, again correctly, that today Israel has the capacity
"to defend itself by itself." Notwithstanding the blustering threats regularly issued by
Tehran, "it is today's nuclear-armed Israel that has the means to crush Iran, not the other way
around."
Furthermore, Martin has had his fill of the peace process. "A two-state solution to the
Palestinian problem is a vital Israeli interest, not a vital American one," he writes,
insisting that "it's time to end the farce of putting forward American peace plans only to have
one or both sides reject them."
Martin does identify one vital U.S. interest in the Middle East: averting a nuclear arms
race. Yet "we should be wary of those who would rush to battle stations," he cautions. "Curbing
Iran's nuclear aspirations and ambitions for regional dominance will require assiduous American
diplomacy, not war."
That last sentence captures the essence of Martin's overall conclusion: he proposes not
disengaging from the Middle East but demilitarizing U.S. policy. "After the sacrifice of so
many American lives, the waste of so much energy and money in quixotic efforts that ended up
doing more harm than good," he writes, "it is time for the US to find a way to escape the
costly, demoralising cycle of crusades and retreats."
Now such sentiments appear regularly in the pages of The American Conservative and on
the website of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . Yet in establishment
circles, a willingness to describe U.S. policy in the Middle East as quixotic is rare indeed.
As for acknowledging that we have done more harm than good, such commonsense views are usually
regarded as beyond the pale.
Martin deserves our congratulations. We must hope that his heresy catches fire and spreads
throughout the Blob. In the meantime, if he's in need of office space, the Quincy Institute
stands ready to help.
Welcome to the ranks of the truth tellers, comrade.
Andrew Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large and president of the Quincy Institute. His new
book, The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory ,has
just been published.
"Martin has been deeply invested in the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" and in the
proposition that the United States has a vital interest in pursuing that process to a
successful conclusion. More broadly, he has subscribed to the view that the United States has
vital interests at stake in the Middle East more generally, with regional stability and the
well-being of the people living there"
No. The only use he ever had for the peace process was as cover for what Israel was really
doing.
The only interest he ever cared about was Israel, not the stability or well-being of any
other people but the hawks among Israelis.
He perverted US policy from the inside, in pursuit of those ends of those Lobby partisans.
He has never been anything else.
And is about to pervert it AGAIN. One must be a total ignoramus not to notice American
public's changing attitude towards Israel, as well as Israel's high powered lobbyists.
Before the change turns into an outright hostility, the apologists of the Empire are defusing
the nascent rage. So, HE is the one to be PRAISED for being so wise, and deserving our
support?
This leopard will keep on changing spots, but never his nature.
He is and will remain ardent apologist of American Empire -- for as long as this Empire
serves his primary interest. And that interest is clear -- interest of Israel AND all of its
citizens around the globe.
It is disheartening to read Bacevich praise Indyk-who was, after all, one of the architects
of our disastrous Middle East "policy". I guess the Quincy Institute wants to hew a path
closer to the mainstream narrative. What will be next? An apologia for Doug Feith and Richard
Perle?
Indyk's comments read like a neo-con who's lost favor and power. This is not a good sign.
This points to the internecine warfare within the halls of conceptual power being closer to
decided. With the diplomats out, it leaves the apocalypse cult as the de-facto winner.
Expect more ludicrous demands of US vassals and more effort to attack Iran. They're not
going to stop. Where the oil comes from doesn't matter, what currency is used to conduct
trade does.
It is exactly so -- internecine warfare. But I do not see them loosing power. They are losing
NARRATIVE both internationally and domestically. This is a beginning of crafting a new
narrative to stem the rising hostility against Israel centric militaristic foreign policy
orientation.
Thus switching to "diplomacy", as military posturing just brings about dead ends to
defend.
He wants results, So, change the narrative, diffuse anti-Israeli tide, and become a beacon of
reason and wholesomeness. Who can resist these new spots?
There was never anything Quixotic about US foreign policy in the ME. As for Israel/Palestine,
the policy, and "Martin" was central to it, was to pretend to negotiate in good faith while
Israel occupied "the land from the river to the sea." In Iraq, except for Cheney's oil lust,
it was to carry out the neo-con chant of "the road to Iran is through Iraq." As for Iran, it
has been to barely resist Israel's, and US Israel-firster's, pressure for war, though it may
still happen.
You mean to say that some establishment guy finally got fed up with all the bullshit?
In any event, Indyk is wrong to believe that Israel can defeat Iran in a conflict. Israeli
nuclear weapons are really of little consequence in such a situation as the majority of them
must be delivered by aircraft which Iran will simply shoot down. Those that are siloed will
most likely meet the same fate. But in either case Russia will not allow any such conflict to
go nuclear.
In terms of conventional capabailities, the IDF has never been a very good military unit
since it basically has only entered engagements with less than equally capable opponents.
However, that has all been changing since Hezbollah's defeat of the IDF in 2006.
Today Israel's IDF faces a combat hardened army in Syria, a combat hardened irregular
military force in Lebanon, and increasingly hardened resistance in its own backyard with
Hamas. And Iranian ground forces are not pushovers.
The Israeli navy is meaningless in this situation so it is only in the air that Israel now
has any claim to fame. However, instead of increasing its Air Force with modernized F15x
models, Israel has opted to acquire the F35, which no amount of avionics can make the
air-frame fly better. Iran still uses the F14 as a heavy fighter, which Israel also requires
for her situation making the acquisition of the F35 rather odd.
In the end, it will be Iranian missile development that places that nation in a position
to deal a death blow to the Israeli state.
Vanessa Beeley provides a short, incomplete, list.
I look at the pictures of today's refugees and see the faces of yesterday's. I see the
conditions they inhabit, the squalor and filth, and I see the same in pictures from the past.
I read the words of hatred directed at those innocents and recall the same words being said
of their predecessors.
And the source of the words and plight of the innocents both present
and past come from the same portals or power--The Imperialist West and its Zionist progeny.
How many millions have died to enrich their purse, to increase the size of the estates, to
serve as their slaves? How many more in the future will share their fate?
Will humans ever
evolve to become peaceful animals and save themselves?
"... A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America ..."
"... But it was and is true. Indeed, when I visited Afghanistan back when U.S. troop levels were near their highest, "off camera," so to speak, military folks were quite skeptical of the war. So were Afghans, who had little good to say about their Washington-created and -supported government unless they were collecting a paycheck from it. An incoming president could be forgiven for suspecting that his predecessor had poured more troops into the conflict only to put off its failure until after he'd left office. ..."
"... Accounts like that from Rucker and Leonnig are beloved by the Blob. America's role is to dominate the globe, irrespective of cost. Those officials pursuing this objective, no matter how poorly, are lauded. Any politician challenging Washington's global mission is derided. ..."
"... President Trump has done much wrong. However, he deserves credit for challenging a failed foreign policy that's been paid for by so many while benefiting so few. It is "crazy" and "stupid," as he reportedly said. Why should Americans keep dying for causes that their leaders cannot adequately explain, let alone justify? Let us hope that one day Americans elect a president who will act and not just talk. ..."
fter three years of the Trump presidency, the Washington Post is breathlessly
reporting that Donald Trump is a boor who insults everyone, including generals used to respect
and even veneration. He's had the impertinence to ask critical questions of his military
briefers. For shame!
President Trump's limitations have been long evident. The Post 's discussion,
adapted by Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker from their upcoming book, A Very Stable
Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America , adds color, not substance, to this concern.
It seems that in the summer of 2017, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson, and others were concerned about the president's international ignorance and
organized a briefing at the Pentagon to enlighten him.
Was that a worthwhile mission? Sure. Everyone in the policy world marvels at the president's
lack of curiosity, absent knowledge, bizarre assumptions, and perverse conclusions. He doesn't
get trade, bizarrely celebrates dictatorship, fixates on Iran, doesn't understand agreements,
acts on impulse, and exudes absolute certainty. Yet he also captures the essence of issues and
shares a set of inchoate beliefs held by millions of Americans, especially those who feel
ignored, insulted, disparaged, and dismissed. Most important, he was elected with a mandate to
move policy away from the bipartisan globalist conventional wisdom.
The latter was evidently the main concern of these briefers. The presentation as described
by the article exuded condescension. That attitude very likely was evident to Trump. The
briefing was intended to inform, but even more so to establish his aides' control over him.
While they bridled at Trump's manners, they were even more opposed to his substantive opinions.
And that made the briefing sound like a carefully choreographed attack on his worldview.
For instance, Mattis used charts with lots of dollar signs "to impress upon [the president]
the value of U.S. investments abroad. [Mattis] sought to explain why U.S. troops were deployed
in so many regions and why America's safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals, alliances,
and bases across the globe." Notably, Mattis "then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of
the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the United States safe."
No doubt Secretary Mattis sincerely believed all that. However, it was an argument more
appropriately made in 1950 or 1960. The world has since changed dramatically.
Of course, this is also the position of the Blob, Ben Rhodes' wonderful label for the
Washington foreign policymaking community. What has ever been must ever be, is the Blob's
informal mantra. America's lot in life, no matter how many average folks must die, is to litter
the globe with bases, ships, planes, and troops to fight endless wars, some big, some small, to
make the world safe for democracy, sometimes, and autocracy, otherwise. If America ever stops
fulfilling what seems to be the modern equivalent of Rudyard Kipling's infamous "white man's
burden," order will collapse, authoritarianism will advance, trade will disappear, conflict
will multiply, countries will be conquered, friends will become enemies, allies will defect,
terrorists will strike, liberal values will be discarded, all that is good and wonderful will
disappear, and a new dark age will envelope the earth.
Trump is remarkably ignorant of the facts, but he does possess a commonsensical skepticism
of the utter nonsense that gets promoted as unchallengeable conventional wisdom. As a result,
he understood that this weltanschauung, a word he would never use, was an absolute fantasy. And
he showed it by the questions he asked.
For instance, he challenged the defense guarantee for South Korea. "We should charge them
rent," he blurted out. "We should make them pay for our soldiers." Although treating American
military personnel like mercenaries is the wrong approach, he is right that there is no need to
protect the Republic of Korea. The Korean War ended 67 years ago. The South has twice the
population and, by the latest estimate, 54 times the economy of the North. Why is Seoul still
dependent on America?
If the Blob has its way, the U.S. will pay to defend the ROK forever. Analysts speak of the
need for Americans to stick around even after reunification. It seems there is no circumstance
under which they imagine Washington not garrisoning the peninsula. Why is America, born of
revolution, now acting like an imperial power that must impose its military might
everywhere?
Even more forcefully, it appeared, did Trump express his hostile views of Europe and NATO.
Sure, he appeared to mistakenly believe that there was an alliance budget that European
governments had failed to fund. But World War II ended 70 years ago. The Europeans recovered,
the Soviet Union collapsed, and Eastern Europeans joined NATO. Why is Washington expected to
subsidize a continent with a larger population than, and economy equivalent to, America's, and
far larger than Russia's? Mattis apparently offered the standard bromides, such as "This is
what keeps us safe."
How? Does he imagine that without Washington's European presence, Russia would roll its
tanks and march to the Atlantic Ocean? And from there launch a global pincer movement to invade
North America? How does adding such behemoths as Montenegro keep the U.S. "safe"? What does
initiating a military confrontation with Moscow over Ukraine, historically part of the Russian
Empire and Soviet Union, have to do with keeping Americans "safe"? The argument is
self-evidently not just false but ridiculous.
Justifying endless wars is even tougher. Rucker and Leonnig do not report what the president
said about Syria, which apparently was part of Mattis's brief. However, Trump's skepticism is
evident from his later policy gyrations. Why would any sane Washington policymaker insist that
America intervene militarily in a multi-sided civil war in a country of no significant security
interest to the U.S. on the side of jihadists and affiliates of al-Qaeda? And stick around
illegally as the conflict wound down? To call this policy stupid is too polite.
Even more explosive was the question of Afghanistan, to which the president did speak,
apparently quite dismissively. Unsurprisingly, he asked why the U.S. had not won after 16 years
-- which is longer than the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and the Korean War combined. He
also termed Afghanistan a "loser war." By Rucker's and Leonnig's telling, this did not go over
well: "That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military men and women in uniform
sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their
commander in chief's commands, and here he was calling the way they had been fighting a loser
war."
But it was and is true. Indeed, when I visited Afghanistan back when U.S. troop levels were
near their highest, "off camera," so to speak, military folks were quite skeptical of the war.
So were Afghans, who had little good to say about their Washington-created and -supported
government unless they were collecting a paycheck from it. An incoming president could be
forgiven for suspecting that his predecessor had poured more troops into the conflict only to
put off its failure until after he'd left office.
The fault does not belong to combat personnel, but to political leaders and complicit
generals, who have misled if not lied in presenting a fairy tale perspective on the conflict's
progress and prognosis. And for what? Central Asia is not and never will be a vital issue of
American security. Afghanistan has nothing to do with terrorism other than its having hosting
al-Qaeda two decades ago. Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. In recent years, it's Yemen
that's hosted the most dangerous national affiliate of al-Qaeda. So why are U.S. troops still
in Afghanistan?
Accounts like that from Rucker and Leonnig are beloved by the Blob. America's role is to
dominate the globe, irrespective of cost. Those officials pursuing this objective, no matter
how poorly, are lauded. Any politician challenging Washington's global mission is
derided.
President Trump has done much wrong. However, he deserves credit for challenging a
failed foreign policy that's been paid for by so many while benefiting so few. It is "crazy"
and "stupid," as he reportedly said. Why should Americans keep dying for causes that their
leaders cannot adequately explain, let alone justify? Let us hope that one day Americans elect
a president who will act and not just talk.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He is a former special assistant
to President Ronald Reagan and author of several books, including Foreign Follies:
America's New Global Empire .
"... with little more than a month before the extradition hearing for imprisoned ..."
"... publisher Julian Assange begins. This is the sixth in a series that is looking back on the major works of the publication that has altered the world since its founding in 2006. The series is an effort to counter mainstream media coverage, which is ignoring ..."
"... work, and is instead focusing on Julian Assange's personality. It is ..."
"... uncovering of governments' crimes and corruption that set the U.S. after Assange, ultimately leading to his arrest on April 11 last year and indictment under the U.S. Espionage Act. ..."
"... Special to Consortium News ..."
"... Der Spiegel ..."
"... to the Winter Fund Drive. ..."
"... World Socialist Website ..."
"... Foreign Policy ..."
"... The Guardian ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Green Left ..."
"... The Green Left Weekly ..."
"... The Guardian ..."
"... CORRECTION: CableDrum is an independent Twitter feed and is not associated with ..."
WikiLeaks ' publication of "Cablegate" in late 2010 dwarfed previous releases in both
size and impact and helped cause what one news outlet called a political meltdown for United
States foreign policy.
Today we resume our series The Revelations of WikiLeaks with little more than a
month before the extradition hearing for imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange
begins. This is the sixth in a series that is looking back on the major works of the
publication that has altered the world since its founding in 2006. The series is an effort to
counter mainstream media coverage, which is ignoring WikiLeaks' work, and is instead
focusing on Julian Assange's personality. It is WikiLeaks' uncovering of governments'
crimes and corruption that set the U.S. after Assange, ultimately leading to his arrest on
April 11 last year and indictment under the U.S. Espionage Act.
O f all WikiLeaks' releases, probably the most globally significant have been the
more than a quarter of a million U.S. State Department diplomatic cables leaked in 2010, the
publication of which helped spark a revolt in Tunisia that spread into the so-called Arab
Spring, revealed Saudi intentions towards Iran and exposed spying on the UN secretary general
and other diplomats.
The releases were surrounded by a significant controversy (to be covered in a separate
installment of this series) alleging that WikiLeaks purposely endangered U.S.
informants by deliberately revealing their names. That allegation formed a major part of the
U.S. indictment on May 23 of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange under the Espionage
Act, though revealing informants' names is not a crime, nor is there evidence that any of them
were ever harmed.
WikiLeaks ' publication of "Cablegate," beginning on Nov. 28, 2010, dwarfed
previous WikiLeaks releases, in both size and impact. The publication amounted to 251,287 leaked
American diplomatic cables that, at the time of publication, Der Spiegel described
as"no less than a political meltdown for United States foreign policy."
Cablegate revealed a previously unknown history of diplomatic relations between the United
States and the rest of the world, and in doing so, exposed U.S. views of both allies and
adversaries. As a result of such revelations, Cablegate's release was widely condemned by the
U.S. political class and especially by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Twitter handle Cable Drum, called it,
" The largest set of confidential documents ever to be released into the public
domain. The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into U.S.
Government foreign activities. The cables, which date from 1966 up until the end of February
2010, contain confidential communications between 274 embassies in countries throughout the
world and the State Department in Washington DC. 15,652 of the cables are classified
Secret."
Among the historic documents that
were grouped with Cablegate in WikiLeaks ' Public Library of U.S. Diplomacy are 1.7
million that involve Henry Kissinger, national security adviser and secretary of state under
President Richard Nixon; and 1.4 million related to the Jimmy Carter administration.
Der
Spiegel reported that the majority were "composed by ambassadors, consuls or their
staff. Most contain assessments of the political situation in the individual countries,
interview protocols and background information about personnel decisions and events. In many
cases, they also provide political and personal profiles of individual politicians and
leaders."
Cablegate rounded out WikiLeaks' output in 2010, which had seen the explosive
publication of previous leaks also from Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning including "
Collateral Murder ," the "
Afghan War Diaries " and "
Iraq War Logs ," the subject of earlier installments in this series. As in the case of the
two prior releases, WikiLeaks published Cablegate in partnerships with establishment
media outlets.
The impact of "Cablegate" is impossible to fully encapsulate, and should be the subject of
historical study for decades to come. In September 2015 Verso published " The WikiLeaks Files: The World
According to U.S. Empire ," with a foreword by Assange. It is a compendium of chapters
written by various regional experts and historians giving a broader and more in-depth
geopolitical analysis of U.S. foreign policy as revealed by the cables.
"The internal communications of the US Department of State are the logistical by-product of
its activities: their publication is the vivisection of a living empire, showing what substance
flowed from which state organ and when. Only by approaching this corpus holistically –
over and above the documentation of each individual abuse, each localized atrocity – does
the true human cost of empire heave into view," Assange wrote in the foreword.
' WikiLeaks Revolt' in Tunisia
The release of "Cablegate" provided the spark that many argue
heralded the Arab Spring, earning the late-November publication the moniker of the " WikiLeaks Winter
."
Eventually, many would also
creditWikiLeaks' publication of the diplomatic cables with initiating a
chain-reaction that spread from the Middle East ( specifically
from Egypt) to the global Occupy Wall Street movement by late 2011.
The first of the Arab uprisings was Tunisia's 28-day so-called Jasmine Revolution,
stretching from Dec. 17, 2010, to Jan. 14, 2011, described as the "first WikiLeaks
revolution."
Cables published by WikiLeaks revealed the extent of the Tunisian ruling family's
corruption, and were widely accessible in Tunisia thanks to the advent of social media
platforms like Twitter. Then-President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had been in power for over two
decades at the time of the cables' publication.
"President Ben Ali's extended family is often cited as the nexus of Tunisian corruption.
Often referred to as a quasi-mafia, an oblique mention of 'the Family' is enough to indicate
which family you mean. Seemingly half of the Tunisian business community can claim a Ben Ali
connection through marriage, and many of these relations are reported to have made the most of
their lineage."
A June 2008 cable said: "Whether it's cash, services, land, property, or yes, even your
yacht, President [Zine el Abidine] Ben Ali's family is rumored to covet it and reportedly gets
what it wants."
Symbolic middle finger gesture representing the Tunisian Revolution and its influences in
the Arab world. From left to right, fingers are painted as flags of Libya, Egypt, Tunisia,
Sudan and Algeria. (Khalid from Doha, CC BY 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)
The cables revealed that Ben Ali's extended family controlled nearly the entire Tunisian
economy, from banking to media to property development, while 30 percent of Tunisians were
unemployed. They showed that state-owned property was expropriated to be passed on to private
ownership by family members.
"Lax oversight makes the banking sector an excellent target of opportunity, with multiple
stories of 'First Family' schemes," one cable read. ""With real estate development booming and
land prices on the rise, owning property or land in the right location can either be a windfall
or a one-way ticket to expropriation," said another.
The revolt was facilitated once the U.S. abandoned Ali. Counterpunch reported that:
"The U.S. campaign of unwavering public support for President Ali led to a widespread belief
among the Tunisian people that it would be very difficult to dislodge the autocratic regime
from power. This view was shattered when leaked cables exposed the U.S. government's private
assessment: that the U.S. would not support the regime in the event of a popular uprising."
The internet and large social media platforms played a crucial role in the spread of public
awareness of the cables and their content amongst the Tunisian public. "Thousands of home-made
videos of police repression and popular resistance have been posted on the web. The Tunisian
people have used Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites to organize and direct the
mobilizations against the regime," the World Socialist Website
wrote.
"WikiLeaks acted as a catalyst: both a trigger and a tool for political outcry. Which is
probably the best compliment one could give the whistle-blower site." The magazine added:
"The people of Tunisia shouldn't have had to wait for Wikileaks to learn that the U.S. saw
their country just as they did. It's time that the gulf between what American diplomats know
and what they say got smaller."
The
Guardian published an account in January 2011 by a young Tunisian, Sami Ben Hassine,
who wrote: "The internet is blocked, and censored pages are referred to as pages "not found"
– as if they had never existed. And then, WikiLeaks reveals what everyone was whispering.
And then, a young man [Mohamed Bouazizi] immolates himself. And then, 20 Tunisians are killed
in one day. And for the first time, we see the opportunity to rebel, to take revenge on the
'royal' family who has taken everything, to overturn the established order that has accompanied
our youth."
Protester in Tunis, Jan. 14, 2011, holding sign. Translation from French: "Ben Ali out."
(Skotch 79, CC0, Wikimedia Commons)
On the first day of Chelsea Manning's pretrial in December 2011, Daniel Ellsberg told Democracy Now:
"The combination of the WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning exposures in Tunis and the
exemplification of that by Mohamed Bouazizi led to the protests, the nonviolent protests,
that drove Ben Ali out of power, our ally there who we supported up 'til that moment, and in
turn sparked the uprising in Egypt, in Tahrir Square occupation, which immediately stimulated
the Occupy Wall Street and the other occupations in the Middle East and elsewhere. I hope
[Manning and Assange] will have the effect in liberating us from the lawlessness that we have
seen and the corruption -- the corruption -- that we have seen in this country in the last 10
years and more, which has been no less than that of Tunis and Egypt."
Clinton Told US Diplomats to Spy at UN
The cables' revelation that the U.S. State Department under then-Secretary-of-State Clinton
had demanded officials act as spies on officials at the United Nations -- including the
Secretary General -- was particularly embarrassing for the United States.
El Pais summarized the
bombshell: "The State Department sent officials of 38 embassies and diplomatic missions a
detailed account of the personal and other information they must obtain about the United
Nations, including its secretary general, and especially about officials and representatives
linked to Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran and North Korea.
El
Pais continued: "Several dispatches, signed 'Clinton' and probably made by the office
of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, contain precise instructions about the myriad of
inquiries to be developed in conflict zones, in the world of deserters and asylum seekers, in
the engine room of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or about the United Kingdom, France,
Germany, Russia and China to know their plans regarding the nuclear threat in Tehran."
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton & UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in 2012.
(Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Flickr)
CNN
described the information diplomats were ordered to gather: "In the July 2009 document, Clinton
directs her envoys at the United Nations and embassies around the world to collect information
ranging from basic biographical data on foreign diplomats to their frequent flyer and credit
card numbers and even 'biometric information on ranking North Korean diplomats.' Typical
biometric information can include fingerprints, signatures and iris recognition data."
Der Spiegel reported that
Clinton justified the espionage orders by emphasizing that "a large share of the information
that the US intelligence agencies works with comes from the reports put together by State
Department staff around the world."
Der Spiegel added: "The US State Department also wanted to obtain information on
the plans and intentions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his secretariat relating to
issues like Iran, according to the detailed wish list in the directive. The instructions were
sent to 30 US embassies around the world, including the one in Berlin."
Philip J. Crowley as assistant secretary of state for public affairs in 2010. (State
Department)
The State Department responded to the revelations, with then- State-Department-spokesman
P.J. Crowley reportedly disputing that American
diplomats had assumed a new role overseas.
"Our diplomats are just that, diplomats," he said. "They represent our country around the
world and engage openly and transparently with representatives of foreign governments and civil
society. Through this process, they collect information that shapes our policies and actions.
This is what diplomats, from our country and other countries, have done for hundreds of
years."
In December 2010, just after the cables' publication, Assange told Time : "She should resign if it can be shown that she
was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United
Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up."
Saudis & Iran
A diplomatic cable dated April 20, 2008, made
clear Saudi Arabia's pressure on the United States to take action against its enemy Iran,
including not ruling out military action against Teheran:
"[Then Saudi ambassador to the US Abbdel] Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent
exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. 'He
told you to cut off the head of the snake,' he recalled to the Charge', adding that working
with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and
his government. 11. (S) The Foreign Minister, on the other hand, called instead for much more
severe US and international sanctions on Iran, including a travel ban and further
restrictions on bank lending. Prince Muqrin echoed these views, emphasizing that some
sanctions could be implemented without UN approval. The Foreign Minister also stated that the
use of military pressure against Iran should not be ruled out."
Dyncorp & the 'Dancing Boys' of Afghanistan
The cables indicate that Afghan authorities asked the United States government to quash U.S. reporting on a scandal stemming from the
actions of Dyncorp employees in Afghanistan in 2009.
Employees of Dyncorp, a paramilitary group with an infamous track-record of alleged involvement in sex trafficking
and other human rights abuses in multiple countries, were revealed by Cablegate to have been
involved with illegal drug use and hiring the services of a "bacha bazi," or underage dancing
boy.
A 2009 cable published by WikiLeaks described an event where Dyncorp had purchased
the service of a "bacha bazi." The writer of the cable does not specify what happened during
the event, describing it only as "purchasing a service from a child," and he tries to convince
a journalist not to cover the story in order to not "risk lives."
Although Dyncorp was no stranger to controversy by the time of the cables' publication, the
revelation of the mercenary force's continued involvement in bacha bazi provoked further
questions as to why the company continued to receive tax-payer funded contracts from the United
States.
Sexual abuse allegations were not the only issue haunting Dyncorp. The State Department
admitted in 2017 that it "could not account for" more than $1 billion paid to the company, as
reported by Foreign Policy .
The New York Times later
reported that U.S. soldiers had been told to turn a blind eye to the abuse of minors by those
in positions of power: "Soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of
weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as
the commanders of villages -- and doing little when they began abusing children."
Australia Lied About Troop Withdrawal
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, left, with U.S. President Barack Obama, in the Oval
Office, Nov. 30, 2009, to discuss a range of issues including Afghanistan and climate change.
(White House/Pete Souza)
The Green
Left related that the cables exposed Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's double
talk about withdrawing troops. "Despite government spin about withdrawing all 'combat forces,'
the cables said some of these forces could be deployed in combat roles. One cable said,
"[d]espite the withdrawal of combat forces, Rudd agreed to allow Australian forces embedded or
seconded to units of other countries including the U.S. to deploy to Iraq in combat and combat
support roles with those units."
US Meddling in Latin America
Cables revealed that U.S. ambassadors to Ecuador had opposed the presidential candidacy of
Raphael Correa despite their pretense of neutrality, as observed by The Green Left Weekly .
Additional cables revealed the Vatican attempted to increase its
influence in Latin America with the aid of the U.S. Further cables illustrated the history of Pope Francis while he was a cardinal
in Argentina, with the U.S. appearing to have a positive outlook on the future
pontiff.
Illegal Dealings Between US & Sweden
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wrote in his affidavit :
"Through the diplomatic cables I also learned of secret, informal arrangements between
Sweden and the United States. The cables revealed that Swedish intelligence services have a
pattern of lawless conduct where US interests are concerned. The US diplomatic cables
revealed that the Swedish Justice Department had deliberately hidden particular intelligence
information exchanges with the United States from the Parliament of Sweden because the
exchanges were likely unlawful."
Military Reaction
On Nov. 30, 2010, the State Department declared it would remove the diplomatic cables from
its secure network in order to prevent additional leaks. Antiwar.com added: "The cables had previously been
accessible through SIPRNet, an ostensibly secure network which is accessible by millions of
officials and soldiers. It is presumably through this network that the cables were obtained and
leaked to WikiLeaks ."
The
Guardian described SIPRNet as a "worldwide US military internet system, kept separate
from the ordinary civilian internet and run by the Defence Department in Washington."
Political Fury
On Nov. 29, 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said of the "Cablegate" release:
"This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy; it is an attack on the
international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations
that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity."
The next day, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called for Chelsea Manning's execution,
according to Politico .
Some political figures did express support for Assange, including U.K. Labor leader Jeremy
Corbyn, who wrote via Twitter days after
Cablegate was published: "USA and others don't like any scrutiny via wikileaks and they are
leaning on everybody to pillory Assange. What happened to free speech?"
Other notable revelations from the diplomatic cables included multiple instances of U.S.
meddling in Latin America, the demand by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that
diplomatic staff act as spies , the
documentation of misconduct by U.S. paramilitary forces, the fallout of the 2008 financial
crisis in Iceland, the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany and other European
countries, that the Vatican attempted to increase its
influence in Latin America with the aid of the U.S. , that U.S. diplomats had essentially spied on German Chancellor Angele
Merkel, and much more.
Der Spiegel reported on
Hillary Clinton's demand that U.S. diplomats act as spies:
"As justification for the espionage orders, Clinton emphasized that a large share of the
information that the U.S. intelligence agencies works with comes from the reports put together
by State Department staff around the world. The information to be collected included personal
credit card information, frequent flyer customer numbers, as well as e-mail and telephone
accounts. In many cases the State Department also requested 'biometric information,'
'passwords' and 'personal encryption keys.' "
Der Spiegel added: "The U.S. State Department also wanted to obtain information on
the plans and intentions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his secretariat relating to
issues like Iran, according to the detailed wish list in the directive. The instructions were
sent to 30 U.S. embassies around the world, including the one in Berlin."
Elizabeth Vos is a freelance reporter and co-host of CN Live.
CORRECTION: CableDrum is an independent Twitter feed and is not associated with
WikiLeaks as was incorrectly reported here.
jmg , January 15, 2020 at 09:53
A truly great series, thank you.
The Revelations of WikiLeaks -- Consortium News Series
1. The Video that Put Assange in US Crosshairs -- April 23, 2019
2. The Leak That 'Exposed the True Afghan War' -- May 9, 2019
3. The Most Extensive Classified Leak in History -- May 16, 2019
4. The Haunting Case of a Belgian Child Killer and How WikiLeaks Helped Crack It -- July 11,
2019
5. Busting the Myth WikiLeaks Never Published Damaging Material on Russia -- September 23,
2019
6. US Diplomatic Cables Spark 'Arab Spring,' Expose Spying at UN & Elsewhere -- January
14, 2020
For an updated list with links to the articles, a Google search is:
"The Revelations of WikiLeaks" site:consortiumnews.com For an updated list with links to
the articles, a Google search is:
"The Revelations of WikiLeaks" site:consortiumnews.com
– – –
Consortium News wrote:
> Today we resume our series The Revelations of WikiLeaks with little more than a month
before the extradition hearing for imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange begins.
Yes and, shockingly, Julian has been allowed only 2 hours with his lawyers in the last
month, crucial to prepare the extradition hearings. See:
Summary from Assange hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court this morning -- Tareq Haddad
-- Thread Reader -- Jan 13th 2020
Some rather alarming news this morning (here); Pompeo now says the assassination of Soleimani
was deterrence.
Not stopping there, he went on to say that U.S. deterrence also applies to Russia and
China!
I'd say the gauntlet has been thrown down; just how far behind can war be now?
The U.S. has been pushing the limits of international crime for decades; and I think
they're so used to being not challenged, that they forget (or stupidly think they're
invincible) Russia and China will fight rather than cow tow to any U.S. coercion...
IMO, we just entered a new and far more dangerous era...
The
Open Society and Anti-Defamation League have gone ballistic last week demanding for the
unprecedented eternal banning of Joe diGenova from Fox News or else.
DiGenova (former Federal Attorney for the District of Columbia) committed a grievous crime
indeed, calling out the unspeakable "philanthropist" George Soros on Fox News' Lou Dobbs Show
on Nov. 14 as a force controlling a major portion of the American State Department and FBI. To
be specific, DiGenova stated: "no doubt that George Soros controls a very large part of the
career foreign service of the United States State Department. He also controls the activities
of FBI agents overseas who work for NGOs -- work with NGOs. That was very evident in Ukraine.
And Kent was part of that. He was a very big protector of Soros." DiGenova was here referencing
State Department head George Kent who's testimony is being used to advance President Trump's
impeachment.
Open Society Foundation President Patrick Gaspard denounced Fox ironically calling them
"McCarthyite" before demanding the network impose total censorship on all condemnation of
Soros. Writing to Fox News' CEO, Gaspard stated: "I have written to you in the past about the
pattern of false information regarding George Soros that is routinely blasted over your
network. But even by Fox's standards, last night's episode of Lou Dobbs tonight hit a new low
This is beyond rhetorical ugliness, beyond fiction, beyond ludicrous."
Of course, the ADL and Gaspard won't let anyone forget that any attack on George Soros is an
attack on Jews the world over, and so it goes that the ADL President Jonathan Greenblatt jumped
into the mud saying "Invoking Soros as controlling the State Dept, FBI, and Ukraine is
trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes." He followed that up by demanding Fox ban
DiGenova saying: "If Mr. DiGenova insists on spreading anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, there
is absolutely no reason for Fox News to give him an open mic to do so. Mainstream news networks
should never give a platform to those who spread hate."
Even though the MSM including the Washington Post, NY Times and other rags, not to mention
countless Soros-affiliated groups have come out on the attack, DiGenova's statements cannot be
put back in the bottle, and their attacks just provoke more people to dig more deeply into the
dark dealings of Soros and the geopolitical masterclass that use this a-moral, former Nazi
speculator as their anti-nation state mercenary.
A Little Background on Soros
As has been extensively documented in many locations , ever since young Soros' talents were
identified as a young boy working for the Nazis during WWII (a time he describes as the best
and most formative of his life), this young sociopath was recruited to the managerial class of
the empire becoming a disciple of the "Open Society" post-nation state theories of Karl Popper
while a student in London. He latter became one of the first hedge fund managers with startup
capital provided by Evelyn Rothschild in 1968 and rose in prominence as a pirate of
globalization, assigned at various times to unleash speculative attacks on nations resisting
the world government agenda pushed by his masters (in some cases even attacking the center of
power- London itself in 1992 which provided an excuse for the London oligarchs to stay out of
the very euro trap that they orchestrated for other European nations to walk into).
After the Y2K bubble, Soros began devoting larger parts of his resources to international
drug legalization, euthanasia lobbying, color revolutions and other regime change programs
under the guise of "Human Rights" organizations which have done a remarkable job destroying the
sovereignty of Sudan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria to name a few. Since the economic crisis of
2008-09 (which his speculation helped create through unbounded currency and derivatives
speculation), Soros has begun to advocate a new world governance system centred on what has
recently been called the
"Green New Deal" which has less to do with saving nature, and everything to do with
depopulation.
So when the ADL, and Open Society attacks someone for being anti-semitic, you know that
whomever they are attacking are probably doing something useful.
I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the
people of the United States who you claim to be serving. Every day you read the same script,
and it's a bevy of lies, every time.
'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of
evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself
dependent on them for political survival
Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at
the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike
Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first
things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as
an evangelical Christian".
In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department
office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."
The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to
embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common
cause against Iran.
His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a
preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly
built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".
ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for
Trump Read more
The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats,
and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces
behind the administration's foreign policy.
The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have
far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical
theology as a powerful motivating force.
Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three
years ago to join a fight of good against evil.
"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It
is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."
For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future,
a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful
will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.
For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the
gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan
River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and
it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .
It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes
towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian
minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the
new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000
political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.
Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at
the West Point military academy in the 1980s.
"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he
undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in
Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a
compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."
As Donald
Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence
of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely
to grow.
"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven,"
Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There
is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be
readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."
Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US
Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the
adult population . In a 2015
poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of
Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in
Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.
The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.
Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not
churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But
white evangelicals have embraced him.
Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them
is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his
presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.
Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian
emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
The comparison is made explicitly in
The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in
October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've
chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."
Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed
prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern
Cyrus".
"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the
faithful," said Katherine
Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.
She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived
threats to their values and way of life.
"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some
degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on
Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders
who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."
Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as
he began contemplating a run for the presidency.
Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the
six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the
eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals,
pointing out: "We are all sinners."
Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer
scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever
closer to his most loyal supporters.
Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour
of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.
Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary
of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the
hemisphere, including
Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to
follow the US lead in
moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .
Trump's order to move
the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national
security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.
ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East
policy Read more
The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon
Adelson, but the orchestration of the
embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to
appease.
For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the
Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a
growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.
Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took
more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to
gender and
reproductive health in UN documents.
Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader
Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the
lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the
Iranian government.
ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo
Read more
Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the
forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".
This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks
such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the
legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal
with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.
In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has
reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US
troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian
influence there.
But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for
Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.
One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away
from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last
minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction
from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.
He's played fast and loose with the facts, undermining his credibility on the world
stage.
Democrats insist the move was hasty and claim there wasn't adequate intelligence to justify
killing Soleimani. Essetually he was murged because Pompeo wanted to show the strength of the USA
in view of the attack on the USA embassy (which did not have any victims)
Pompeo collected more campaign donations from the Kochs and their employees than any
candidate in the country
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region. ..."
"... Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader. ..."
"... While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution. ..."
Consequences: Donald Trump appears to have no strategy for dealing with the fall-out
In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a
declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks
the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region.
Unsurprisingly, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that 'severe consequences'
await the killers of Soleimani, while the country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif,
denounced the assassination as an 'act of international terrorism'.
Meanwhile in the US, a number of major cities have increased security to protect prominent
landmarks and civilians from possible revenge terrorist attacks.
Whether or not that US reaction is justified, it would be difficult to overstate just how
big a loss Soleimani's death is for the Iranian regime, how seriously we should take its vows
of revenge – or, just as crucially, how humiliatingly off-guard Iran's leaders were when
Trump gave his kill order.
Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the
ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which
Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what
will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's
leader.
Meanwhile, so apparently unconcerned was Soleimani about his own safety that the general
– famed for constantly outsmarting his enemies on the battlefield – did not bother
to keep his travel plans secret.
While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before
the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since
the country's 1979 revolution.
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.
The
Washington Post
dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision
to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the
Post,
this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary
of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve
the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence,
the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes
to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian
aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the
rats in the president*'s head.
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But
that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor
and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where
the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior
U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong
Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant
factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the
U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the
decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants
from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church
music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric
Twitter machine. A handy compilation:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader
who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime,
including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits
in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any
Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE
HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder
than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and
without hesitation!
And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target,
the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required,
but is given nevertheless!
You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.
Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the
Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a
modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't.
He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in
public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in
time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.
Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example,
did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of
it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.
President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into
office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity
to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a
different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.
But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a
deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think
this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent
sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.
"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If
you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken
against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of
this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of
many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."
Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican
president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing
utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of
State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two
hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some
mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one
remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has
disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now
much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international
troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him
would be an equally terrible mistake.
Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also
likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like
Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one
sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is
no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a
bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from
Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly
has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy
Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term
seems the best available choice.
It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are
talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years.
Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving
Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no
wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden
administration with a failed foreign policy?
Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the
better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and
his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history.
Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next
Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in.
Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone call, and generally, was
trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G.
Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned
"Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from
Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via
Obama's coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than
politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a
basic change in US foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been
established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack
Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the
renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don't want to let go of Obama's worst policies.
But changing US foreign policy is within a President's Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a
growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism -- something that he had never thought much about
but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in
2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more -- possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who
likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump's gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn't just
political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually
been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently
still hasn't yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie
Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (
in May 2019 ) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been
the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America's foreign service. She was
actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W.
Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in
2001.
All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and
just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet,
even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing
for it was "The United States is and remains
the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable."
This imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale's 'pacifist' pro-Nazi America
First movement , which was supported by Wall Street's Dulles brothers in the
early 1940s , and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the
progressive US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the UN in order to be the
anti -imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would
democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of
nations -- a global democratic federation of sovereign republics -- neoconservatives are
US imperialists, who want instead to destroy the UN, and to extend American power over
the entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the
world, and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The UN would be
weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had
been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale's John
Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of
it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged
advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: US imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take over
Russia, however, he no longer does -- he has broken with Bolton on that central neoconservative
goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme than Obama's
policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact , produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on
as policy on the American imperialists' side . The neoconservative side, which controlled
the US Government by that time (FDR's vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered
the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia's sovereignty over its own land,
and certainly not over the land of Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile
border with Russia. Neoconservatives want US missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along
Russia's border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along
Canada's and Mexico's borders with the US; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but
neoconservatives aren't decent people. Neoconservatives (US imperialists) seek for all of
Russia's neighbors to become part of the US empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become
able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for
power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on
11 October 2019 , Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward
Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative
outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and
lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine's geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters
of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to the
security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to
the security of Russia -- it's a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning,
to neoconservatives, under US control] , and that it continue to resist Russian
expansionism [like Russia cares about US expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere?
Really? Is that actually what this is about? It's about extending US imperialism on and across
Russia's border into Russia itself] Russia's purported annexation of Crimea [but,
actually, "Clear
and convincing evidence will be presented here that, under US President Barack Obama, the US
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia's
main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a US naval base." ]
, its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov, make clear
Russia's malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia's determination not to be
surrounded by enemies -- by US-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is 'malign', she says]
. If we allow Russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the United States will
regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine's integration into Europe and combating
Russia' s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn't do that destabilization ?] have anchored
our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and demanded to be a part
of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before Obama's takeover of
Ukraine in February 2014 didn't actually want to be part of the EU nor of NATO, and they
considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. "In 2010, Gallup
found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean 'protection of your country,' 40%
said it's 'a threat to your country'." ] That was US policy when I became ambassador in
August 2016 [after Obama's successful coup there took over its
media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia] , and it was reaffirmed as that
policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that's correct,
finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a
neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [ you'll see here the 'dignity' of it ]
and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to
take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political and
economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before] .
That's just one example -- it's about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of
Ukrainegate isn't really that. It's not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and
what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden's
son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending
individuals. Trump isn't certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged
neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama's neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.
So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes
into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President
Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama's policy in Ukraine, a policy of
which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama's agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to
continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and
business relationships that the US news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying
about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about
whether to replace Trump by Pence:
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden's son,
Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person
that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian
Government until Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it
was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government,
which the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that
phone-conversation appointing Ukraine's new leader is explained here ), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has
correctly called "the most blatant coup in
history." ( Here's more
explanation of that coup which was done by Obama. )
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against
America's current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and
understands accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of
Ukraine, and the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government
(installing it), and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss
at Burisma, Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama's agent Victoria Nuland) had installed
Ukraine's new Government.
As I had written on
28 September 2019 , "In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky
doesn't want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden's
boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor
until Zelensky became Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms
which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places
."
That article, at the phrase "
dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually
been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac)
funded by America's billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup , as well as of Barack
Obama's political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this
study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped. It
found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the
Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor
Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych's overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became
appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration's post-coup
Ukrainian Government. Obama's financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that
Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama's
Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to
prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama
had just overthrown. Hunter Biden's function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against
being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama
Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to
serve as a US fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away
from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter's father, Joe Biden,
followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky.
Soros isn't really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to
take over, and that he uses the US Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is
simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of
billionaires. (In America's case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)
So, it's just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international
relations are imperialists; and, in America, that's called "neoconservative." The American
issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine's corruption. Corruption is standard and
accepted throughout the US-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over
it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country's
imperialism and its own associated corruption. "Our country's corruption is acceptable, but
yours is not," is the view. That's the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism --
imperialism anywhere, actually -- is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of
nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a
nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country's billionaires, a patriot supports his
country's residents -- all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having
equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A
nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are
intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists
are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than
patriots.
Information hasn't yet been published regarding what Trump's agent Rudolph Giuliani has
found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that
I am aware of, and it's evidence which contradicts what the US-and-allied press have been
reporting about the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump's
team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts
Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America's
President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which
US-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly contradicting
– contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is presented
here .Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by America's
press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great
independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from
Moscow, John Helmer , headlined on 19
February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports,
"THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II -- WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT
WASHINGTON DOESN'T WANT TO SEE" , and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government
records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and
elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the
US-and-allied 'news'-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this
firm when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See
this, for example, from Britain's Guardian , two years later, on 12 April 2017,
simply ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting
Zlochevsky -- Kolomoysky's decoy -- as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma's
alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine's Government prosecute
Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against
corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own
boss, Barack Obama's, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych -- the Ukrainian
President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn't to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every
post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is
famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt.
However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all
Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky's major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in
Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons' causes. For example, on 11 March
2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor
Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro
Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma.
Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. Aseries of recordingswould seem
to back up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov hadfour meetings– with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic
Studies), Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer
(McCain Institute).
Doug Schoen filedFARA
documentsshowing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5)
– in part to arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It
is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street
Journalreportedhow Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to
pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a political
rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO's PR agency the Atlantic Council,
were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a
panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives,
and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised
the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist
Government of Ukraine.
Joe Biden's campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt
influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington by
the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and
pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald
Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and with
John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount
of money is substantially greater than Biden's son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk's Ukrainian
rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai, Biden's New
York front company.
Pinchuk's message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen's Fox
News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own
frontrunner, Joe Biden."
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraine's President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and
reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU's and
Trump Administration's continuing support for Ukraine's Government, so that Zelensky is
desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper
bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought
Russia. Now He's Ready to Embrace It." This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time,
he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West andturn back toward Russia ." Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama's team
in Ukraine, no longer is on the US team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that
Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama
plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015,
brought to a board meeting of Ukraine's gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which
Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns , in an unsuccessful
attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky's choice to lead the company.
Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the pressure from Ukraine's
bondholders to fire
Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine's biggest bank,
PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors' accounts and secreted the
proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine's
taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.) Zelensky is
squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10 September 2019,
the Financial Timesreported that
"The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank's nationalisation would jeopardise
its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery of the
$5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama's
Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump's?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow's protection,
though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the
Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama's entire Ukrainian
operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama's command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation , which Kolomoysky's co-planner
of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov,
euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former
Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?
Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the
International Criminal Court , so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown
Ukraine's
democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize
himself for such
crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria ? How likely is it
that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist
(such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is
himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an
instance where he benefited from it -- never for international law itself . Trump isn't
likely to be the first. But here's how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There's not much distance between
his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's. However, after Trump becomes
impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican US
Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic Party
profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden's boss Obama as having
caused the war in Ukraine . In order for him to do that, however, he'd also need to expose
the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling
Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she's
rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party . Neoconservatism is
the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America's billionaires, both Republican and Democratic,
and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn't
trickle down, but ideology apparently does -- and that's not merely neoliberalism but
also its international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election
ticket were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat
anything that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket
which would remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the
perhaps 5% of Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and
who is the least-neoconservative member of the US Senate), would attract some of Gabbard's
supporters, but he wouldn't be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American
politics. The 2020 US Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America's
billionaires probably won't let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have
enormous powers over the Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The US
Supreme Court made it this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision , and
the 2010
Citizens United decision .
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it
is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived -- by America's Big-Money people.
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy in
Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had
promised to end the war (which the US had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow
that -- they want to force him to accept more US-made weapons and more US training of Ukraine's
troops in how to use them against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a US operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal US President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal US
President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a
public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times. This
was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried hard
to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly
have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies,
whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional representation in the US House, and instead of yet a third system of the Electoral
College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it has become
thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy of wealth
controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the Revolution in
order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as constituting
our Government.
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings' Ranking Minority Member, the
neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes , stands for, I close here with
his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st , in which he validly described the
Democrats' scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look
deeper to the issues I raise in this article -- he dealt here merely with how "shoddy"
the case the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that
President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president
Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to
extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It's clear why the
Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good reason
to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread corruption in
that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been paused at the
time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the conversation. The aid
was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were supposedly being coerced into
doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under
President Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses
have testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different
reasons. So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed and no
one even claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple
slogan, "he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something
wrong and getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought
crime the Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on
this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It's not president
Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely claiming they
had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack the 2016
election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and lying
about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations of the
Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise that
impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is to the
American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden
transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to
obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians, and
they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee operative,
who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly redacting her
name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her testimony as a witness
in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent years. They got
caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President
Trump was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and
the president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules,
today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee, formerly
known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political benefit they want
from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to this country will be
long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president? They have pitted
Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually believe the entire
galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president since the day the
American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so
our nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in
government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the
Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let's hope they finally
learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a change. In
addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican members
transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key witnesses
that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This rule was not
displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it applies to the
Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly scheduling an agreed upon
time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key witnesses that you have
continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that
she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that
Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in
March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long
investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling
campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided
specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my
staff to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of
their memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican
report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy
theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in
election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously
by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38
countries were asked whether they agree that "You
can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the
38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in
the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their
2018 edition , that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost
three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support
to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right's
alienation from mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what
had been 49% rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires' (i.e.,
mainstream) media are trusted now almost only by liberals. What the media report is considered
trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today's America. By 53% to only 9% -- an almost 6 to 1
ratio -- the skeptics of the billionaires' press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are
distrusted, then the nation can't be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be
distrusted if they lie as much as America's do. Untrusted 'news'-media are a sure indication
that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media). In
America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic
qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did
to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to -- for examples -- Saudi Arabia,
UAE, and Israel). Liberals trust America's dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy.
Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR's vision, of a United Nations which
would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the US nor any other
country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than by the
Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the
Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama's imperialistic ( anti -FDR)
agenda. Trump, after all, didn't do the coup to Ukraine; Obama
did .
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close:
The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The
Event that Created Christianity.
Over a dinner of the "Presidential Cheeseburger" and wedge salad, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor
that Marie L. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador to Ukraine, was bad-mouthing the
president -- an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied, according to two people
with knowledge of the dinner.
The exchange foreshadowed the role that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman would come to play in Mr.
Trump's Ukrainian campaign.
Less than two weeks later, Mr. Parnas met with another critic of Ms. Yovanovitch,
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, in his Washington congressional office. Mr. Parnas, who
had recently met Mr. Sessions at a fund-raiser, showed him a map of a crucial pipeline related
to their gas venture, a photo shows.
By the end of the meeting, though, the topic had shifted to Ms. Yovanovitch, and Mr. Parnas
reiterated what he had heard, a person briefed on the meeting said. After the meeting, Mr.
Sessions sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Ms. Yovanovitch had spoken
disdainfully of the Trump administration, and suggesting her removal. Mr. Sessions, who lost
his re-election bid last year, has previously said he wrote the letter independently of Mr.
Parnas and Mr. Fruman, after speaking to congressional colleagues.
Federal prosecutors contend in the indictment against Mr. Parnas that he was not just
making small talk but sought to oust Ms. Yovanovitch "at the request of one or more Ukrainian
government officials," which could be a violation of federal laws that require Americans to
register with the Justice Department when lobbying for foreign political interests. The
indictment did not name any Ukrainian officials.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment. ..."
"... The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first. ..."
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed
toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment
that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional
subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power
to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized,
both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives
will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas
requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has
argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches.
Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides
support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of
impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as
part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part
of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that
the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional
subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order
before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles
of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely
what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the "greatest danger" of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness,
this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include
obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end
up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at
least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart
and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact
which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced
recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an
aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second
article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative
and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats
to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
"... I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq. As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense. ..."
"... He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign. ..."
"... When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress. ..."
"... Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over. ..."
Enthusiasm over entrepreneurship is now found in every corner of society -- even, apparently, within the federal bureaucracy.
Witness after witness in last month's House impeachment inquiry hearings referred to "the interagency," an off-the-books informal
government organization that we now know has enormous power to set and execute American foreign policy.
The first to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, State Department official George Kent, seemed to conceive of the
interagency as the definitive source of foreign-policy consensus. That Mr. Trump's alleged decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine
deviated from that consensus was, for Mr. Kent, prima facie evidence that it was misguided.
Next up, Ambassador William Taylor told the committee that it was the "unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion"
that the aid should be resumed without delay. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, gave the game away by admitting
how upset she was that Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, had established an "alternative" approach
to helping Kyiv. "We have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine," she said.
What is the interagency, and why should its views guide the conduct of American diplomatic and national-security professionals?
The Constitution grants the president the power to set defense and diplomatic policy. Where did this interagency come from?
I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq.
As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was
executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense.
He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that
the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new
hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong
engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign.
Interagency cooperative agreements have been around for decades. The Justice Department, for example, has opioid-interdiction
programs that require it to work with the Department of Homeland Security. Today a dictionary of more than 12,500 official terms
exists to guide bureaucrats in writing interagency contracts that repurpose federal funds appropriated to various executive departments.
Often these interdepartmental initiatives devised by bureaucrats are unknown to Congress. It's hard to imagine that the legislative
branch wouldn't object to these arrangements, if only it were aware of them.
When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military
and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the
Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine
and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress.
Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government
credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of
how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who
probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that
Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over.
The impeachment hearings will have served a useful purpose if all they do is demonstrate that a cabal of unelected officials are
fashioning profound aspects of U.S. foreign policy on their own motion. No statutes anticipate that the president or Congress will
delegate such authority to a secret working group formed largely at the initiation of entrepreneurial bureaucrats, notwithstanding
that they may be area experts, experienced in diplomatic and military affairs, and motivated by what they see as the best interests
of the country.
However the impeachment drama plays out, Congress has cause to enact comprehensive legislation akin to the Goldwater-Nichols Act
of 1986, which created more-efficient structures and transparent processes in the Defense Department. Americans deserve to know who
really is responsible for making the nation's foreign policy. The interagency, if it is to exist, should have a chairman appointed
by the president, and its decisions, much like the once-secret minutes of the Federal Reserve, should be published, with limited
and necessary exceptions, for all to see.
Mr. Schramm is a university professor at Syracuse. His most recent book is "Burn the Business Plan."
So a republican staffer, a neocon without any diplomatic experience was the NSC senior director of European and Russian
affairs, the successor of Fiona Hill.
Washington
-- A top National Security Council official who listened to President Trump's July call with the
president of Ukraine told lawmakers he "promptly" told White House lawyers he was concerned details of the call would
become public, but did not think "anything illegal was discussed" during the conversation.
Tim Morrison, the outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council and a
deputy assistant to the president, is testifying before committees leading the
impeachment inquiry
on Capitol Hill on Thursday. He has emerged as a central witness to the events at the center
of the inquiry, particularly the administration's policy toward Ukraine.
CBS News learned the substance of his opening statement to the committees, which ran six pages and appears below.
Morrison said the summary released by the White House of the call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky accurately reflects his memory and understanding of the call, but he said he had three concerns in the event
the summary became public.
"[F]irst, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the
bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the
Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship," Morrison, who was in the Situation Room for the call, told
lawmakers. "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."
However, he also corroborated a central allegation in the Democratic case against the president: that a U.S.
ambassador told a high-ranking Ukrainian official that the release of military aid was contingent on an investigation
into the Bidens.
Tim Morrison arrives for a deposition at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 31,
2019.
SAUL LOEB / AF
Morrison said his predecessor, Fiona Hill, told him about "concerns about two Ukraine processes that were
occurring": one led by traditional U.S. diplomatic entities, and one led by the U.S. Ambassador the E.U. Gordon
Sondland and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. He said Hill told him about their efforts to get Ukraine
to investigate Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that had employed Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe
Biden's son.
"At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the investigation entailed," Morrison said. "After the
meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was
on its board."
Morrison said he spoke frequently with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in the embassy in Kiev. Taylor
testified before the committees
last week and described his misgivings about efforts to pressure Ukraine
to open investigations into the president's rivals. Morrison, in his statement, confirmed the substance of Taylor's
account, but said he remembered two details differently.
Taylor testified that Morrison told him Sondland had demanded the Ukrainian president announce an investigation
into Burisma, while Morrison said he remembered Sondland saying an announcement by the country's top prosecutor would
suffice. Taylor also indicated Morrison met with the Ukrainian national security adviser in his hotel room, while
Morrison said it was in the hotel's business center.
Morrison said he learned about a delay in military aid to Ukraine shortly after assuming his post, and was tasked
with coordinating with various agencies to demonstrate why the aid was needed.
"I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could convince President Trump to
release the aid," he said.
Morrison testified he had "no reason to believe" the Ukrainians knew of a delay in military aid until August 28,
and said he was unaware the aid may have been tied to the demand for an investigation into Burisma until he spoke to
Sondland on September 1.
Morrison arrived on Capitol Hill before 8 a.m. Thursday for his deposition after Democrats issued a subpoena for
his testimony. A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee chairman declined to comment on his opening statement.
Morrison appeared on the same day the House
approved a resolution
greenlighting the rules for impeachment proceedings moving forward.
On Wednesday, officials said Morrison would be leaving his White House post. He said in his statement he has yet
to submit his resignation "because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and
my impending departure."
"I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish," he said.
Read Morrison's full statement
Opening Statement of Timothy Morrison
Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
October 31, 2019
Chairman Schiff and Members of the Committees, I appear today under subpoena to answer your questions about my
time as Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council ("NSC"). I will
give you the most complete information I can, consistent with my obligations to the President and the protection of
classified information. I do not know who the whistleblower is, nor do I intend to speculate as to who it may be.
Before joining the NSC in 2018, I spent 17 years as a Republican staffer, serving in a variety of roles in both
houses of Congress. My last position was Policy Director for the then-Majority Staff of the House Armed Services
Committee.
I. The Role of the National Security Council
From July 9, 2018 to July 15, 2019, I served as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security and as
the NSC Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense. In that role, I had limited exposure to
Ukraine, focusing primarily on foreign military sales and arms control. On July 15, 2019, I became Deputy Assistant
to the President for National Security. In this role, I serve as the lead interagency coordinator for national
security issues involving Europe and Russia.
It is important to start with the role of the NSC. Since its creation by Congress in 1947, the NSC has
appropriately evolved in shape and size to suit the needs of the President and the National Security Advisor it
serves at the time. But its mission and core function has fundamentally remained the same: to coordinate across
departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to ensure the President has the policy options he needs to
accomplish his objectives and to see that his decisions are implemented. The NSC staff does not make policy. NSC
staff are most effective when we are neutral arbiters, helping the relevant Executive Branch agencies develop options
for the President and implement his direction.
In my current position, I understood our primary U.S. policy objective in Ukraine was to take advantage of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity that resulted from the election of President Zelensky and the clear majority he had
gained in the Ukrainian Rada to see real anti-corruption reform take root.
The Administration's policy was that
the best way for the United States to show its support for President Zelensky's reform efforts was to make sure the
United States' longstanding bipartisan commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered, it is easy to
forget here in Washington, but impossible in Kyiv, that Ukraine is still under armed assault by Russia, a
nuclear-armed state.
We also tend to forget that the United States had helped convince Ukraine to give up Soviet
nuclear weapons in 1994. United States security sector assistance (from the Departments of Defense and State) is,
therefore, essential to Ukraine. Also essential is a strong and positive relationship with Ukraine at the highest
levels of our respective governments.
In my role as Senior Director for European Affairs, I reported directly to former Deputy National Security
Advisor, Dr. Charles Kupperman, and former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton. I kept them fully
informed on matters that I believed merited their awareness or when I felt I needed some direction. During the time
relevant to this inquiry, I never briefed the President or Vice President on matters related to Ukrainian security.
It was my job to coordinate with the U.S. Embassy Chief of Mission to Ukraine William Taylor, Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, and other interagency stakeholders in the Departments of Defense and State of
Ukrainian matters.
My primary responsibility has been to ensure federal agencies had consistent messaging and policy guidance on
national security issues involving European and Russian affairs. As Dr. Fiona Hill and I prepared for me to succeed
her, one of the areas we discussed was Ukraine. In that discussion, she informed me of her concerns about two Ukraine
processes that were occurring: the normal interagency process led by the NSC with the typical department and agency
participation and a separate process that involved chiefly the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Dr. Hill told
me that Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President
Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma. At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the
investigation entailed. After the meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy
company and that Hunter Biden was on its board. I also did not understand why Ambassador Sondland would be involved
in Ukraine policy, often without the involvement of our duly-appointed Chief of Mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.
My most frequent conversations were with Ambassador Taylor because he was the U.S. Chief of Mission in Ukraine and
I was his chief conduit for information related to White House deliberations, including security sector assistance
and potential head-of-state meetings. This is a normal part of the coordination process.
II. Review of Open Source Documents in Preparation for Testimony
In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on
October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is
accurate. My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my
September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a
conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak.
Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until
President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's
proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general -- not President Zelensky -- would
commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian
National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an
NSC aide and I met with Mr. Danyliuk in the hotel's business center.
I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation ("MemCont') of the July 25 phone call that was released by the
White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the
MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the
NSC Legal Advisor's Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and
his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in
Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners
currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine
relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.
III. White House Hold on Security Sector Assistance
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my
superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought
Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President
believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate
with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported
security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State
and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could
convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely
invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky
administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released
before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S.
support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019. Ambassador
Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a
public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland.
Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders
in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector
assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has
become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
IV. Conclusion
After 19 years of government service, I have decided to leave the NSC. I have not submitted a formal resignation
at this time because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and my impending
departure. I plan to finalize my transition from the NSC after my testimony is complete.
During my time in public service, I have worked with some of the smartest and most self-sacrificing people in this
country. Serving at the White House in this time of unprecedented global change has been the opportunity of a
lifetime. I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish.
"... It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he behind that or was someone else? ..."
"... After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped. That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump. ..."
"... The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination. ..."
"... If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
@Z-man I
wasn't sure how to characterize McMaster and Kelly. My sense was that they represented the
foreign policy establishment consensus, ergo neocon by default.
I share your optimism about Trump -- because it's the only strand of hope out there, and
his enemies are so impeccably loathsome -- but am fully prepared to be proved wrong.
"How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it
was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such
appointees."
It started before Bolton came on board.
Believe Trump when he says "Loyalty to me first". And that begins with his son in law
Jared .his former personal attorney Jason Greenblatt .his former bankruptcy attorney David
Friedman and his largest donor Sheldon Adelson .
Trump is too stupid to see that his Zios have no loyalty to him. Trump doesn't appoint anyone, doesn't even know anyone to appoint to national security or
foreign policy. He never had any associations or confidents in his business life in NY except
the above Jews .
Ask yourself how a 29 year old Jewish boy (now gone) with zero experience got brought onto
the WH NSC. He was recommended by Gen. Flynn who did it as a favor to Zio Frank Gaffney of
Iraq fame, and Jared because he was a friend of Jared and Gaffney was a friend Ezra's family.
..getting the picture?
All Trumps appointments look like a chain letter started by Kushner and his Zio
connections.
It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to
understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an
example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he
behind that or was someone else?
He's a walking contradiction.
After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped.
That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that
Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump.
There was a lull in the attacks on Trump between the time they stopped the 24/7
Russia-gate garbage and start of Impeachment inquiry.
He did something else to tick them all off, so now impeachment is on front burner.
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
Decades old rhetorical question and answer-the indolent, indoctrinated and illiterate masses
who only care about the Super Bowl and other sports,Disneyland and burgers. Twelve per cent of
Americans have never heard of the Vice President Mike Pence - that is 30,870,000 American
adults.
It is the same people who have been making it since the creation of central banks in
America (all three of them).
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country,
they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They
will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war.
– John Turner, 1922
"This was a debate over policy. Trump's critics may not have liked the policy he was
pushing. But as former Defense Intelligence Agency official Pat Lang noted on his blog last
week,
the statute in question applies only to "intelligence activities" but "does not include
differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
That's what this fight is about, said Lang . Speaker after speaker at the hearings asserted
that Trump's views did not comport with official national policy. But the president sets that
policy, Lang said, not the diplomats.
"They think they are the people who set national policy and the president is this figurehead
who is guided by all these people around him who agree on everything," he said. "The president
doesn't need to use the State Department at all to conduct foreign policy." ' Paul Mulshine
-------------
Actually, I was too minimal in speaking of "diplomats." Vindman is not a diplomat and there
are many other actors in this drama of Borgist angst (foreign policy establishment ) who are
not diplomats.
For one thing a large percentage of the Drones at the State Department are civil service
employees rather than Foreign Service Officers, and although they do not play well together
they agree on the ultimate authority of the Supremacy Clause (non-existent) in the US
Constitution that gives the State Department dominion over all the Lord created. A career
ambassador's wife once lectured me that the US Army should change the cap badge that officers
wear because it looks too much like the Great Seal of the United States which in the State
Department can only be displayed by Ambassadors. I told her that she should petition the
Secretary of the Army in this matter.
Various departments of government, media, academia, thinktankeries, etc., all have heavy
infestations of folks who went to graduate school together in poly sci in all its branches, or
who wish to be thought worthy of such attendance. They specialize in group think, conformity,
and conformism, even to the solemn dress they affect. The four in hand tie knot is pretty much
mandatory for serious consideration for inclusion in the Borg. It indicates a certain preppy
insouciance and faux disregard for details of dress.
Trump's casual disregard for all that enrages the Borg who thought they had "won it all"
long ago and that they would have a Borgist neocon to deal with in Hillary.
Hillary's Foundation has lost millions recently, which has Hillary pursing her lips like
she's been using a lemon for her lipstick. I mean, worse than fish-lips, Hillary's pursing
expression.
Too bad that we can't form some cement shoes for the Borg and toss them into the east
river AKA the Atlantic, or send them back to hell from where they originated!
OT:
This afternoon my wife and I turned on the TV to watch football. We were flipping through
channels and came upon some local ABC affiliate (WMUR) which had on a documentary which
mentioned the Medal of Honor and a Catholic chaplain in Vietnam. Needless to say we stayed on
that channel. Long story short, it was one of the most powerful things we've ever watched. We
were both in tears by the end (nb: I don't cry easily) and we were changed from having
watched it. We immediately went online to purchase copies for family members. It was recently
released.
As the Borg like to say "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own." They have done this with the four in hand tie knot which was previously worn by giants
like George Kennon and Chip Bohlen. Yet now, the midgetry prevails.
Colonel...This is another Reason why I appreciate your levels of Experience and knowledge
with SST..Thank you for doing that...I always come away with New Insight..and Understanding
of Real Dynamics..what has Progressively Developed inside the State.Department.with its
Influence On so Much POLICY...and .is as You say...The BORG..and Their Own Culture.your
Article put that all into a Big Picture for Me..(Connecting the Data..) .It.as you aptly
Described. is a Universal.Sect..and...At The National Level...They are Cyber Borgs..Shciff
Shapers..and that Whole Colony has Been Exposed.,,, Bad Products and All....
Fiona Hill appears to be part of the Borg, not really sure which part she's affiliated.
Some have called her a 'sleeper agent', but a sleeper for whom? British Intelligence agent of
influence? Or an Israeli agent of influence, or maybe a Daniel Pipes trained NEOCON agent of
influence? Any way one spins it, Fiona Hill has been undermining POTUS Trump while she was
part of his NSC and his advisory team. Why her intense hatred of Putin? Does he happen to
know through his nation's intelligence exactly who she is and whom she may be working on
behalf of? The Skripal incident showed just how much that the British Government and Crown
hate Russia. But why the intense British hatred of Russia, why?
Questions, so many questions regarding Ms. Hill and who she really works for.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
The fraction of RussiaGate/UkraineGate that can be taken seriously is quite small. An
enormous amount of it is "it's ok when we do it"-level material. Difficult to sort without
presenting a range encompassing all factions.
It's possible I'm too jaded, but "reporters presents material derived from his political
faction" isn't all that exciting, since I don't belong to either of the factions engaged in
this battle. I remember the Lewinsky Matter, WMDs, and (see today's Links), being smeared by
Prop0rNot, and UkraineGate just a little too well.
"... Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, " ..."
"... According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul Manfort," ..."
"... Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal aide. ..."
"... He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump. ..."
"... Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal, unethical and unconscionable. ..."
"... Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the "whistleblower" complaint. ..."
"... Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member of the Intelligence committee. ..."
"... IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new "interpretive" guidelines. ..."
"... The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid mouthpieces for the Deep State. ..."
"... Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017, ..."
"... Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'" ..."
WASHINGTON, DC : Adam Schiff "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella has
been exposed as a John Brennan ally. An ally who actively worked to defame, target, and destroy
President Donald Trump during both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was fired from the
Trump White House for leaking confidential if not classified information detrimental to the
President. ( The Pajama Boy
Whistleblower Revealed – Rush Limbaugh )
The 33-year-old Ciaramella, a former Susan Rice protege, currently works for the CIA as an
analyst.
Eric Ciaramella: The Deep State non-whistleblower
During his time in the Obama White House, NSC Ciaramella worked under both Vice President
Joe Biden and CIA director John Brennan. He reported directly to NSC advisor Susan Rice through
his immediate boss, Charles Kupchan. Kupchan had extensive ties with Clinton crony Sydney
Blumenthal. Large portions of Blumenthal's disinformation from Ukrainian sources in 2016 was
used in the nefarious Steele Dossier.
Ciaramella also worked extensively with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa led the
effort at the DNC to fabricate a link between the Trump Campaign to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
According to Politico, Chalupa "met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."
The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 between 2004 and 2016.
DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa: Ciaramella co-conspirator
"Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, 'I felt there
was a Russia connection.'"
Apparently without any evidence. So she set out to concoct it.
Chalupa (left) also says that the Ukrainian embassy was working directly with reporters
digging for Trump-Russia ties. How convenient, and unethical.
Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits
the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles
Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, "
"Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a
foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to
influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials."
The FEC complaint against the DNC and Chalupa
In September 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission against the
DNC naming Alexandra Chalupa. The complaint alleges that Chalupa acted "improperly to gather
information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump in the 2016 election".
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa
with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul
Manfort,"
Fox News reporting, that Chalupa allegedly
"Pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort's financial and political ties
to" Ukraine and "sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about
Manafort's work in the country."
John Solomon and Wikileaks both expose Chalupa as DNC operative
"Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information
from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country. Chalupa later
tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties
on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign."
Ciaramella's connection with John Brennan and Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella had been working with John Brennan, Susan Rice, the Obama White House, and
Alexandra Chalupa to target and destroy Donald Trump well before he was elected. He was
initially brought into the NSC and the White House inner circle by John Brennan himself.
Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the
inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal
aide.
He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national
security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump.
Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman: the second "whistleblower"
Ciaramella's title at the White House was NSC Director for Ukraine. That position is now
held by the newest Schiff star witness and Trump hater Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Vindman is
apparently the "2nd whistleblower" to leak his concerns about the call between Trump and
President Zelensky to Ciaramella.
Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign
head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal,
unethical and unconscionable.
Violating clear national security guidelines for classified information.
Republicans, on cross-examination of Vindman was asked by Republicans cross-examining him
during the closed-door secret police hearings conducted by Adam Schiff, asking who Vindman had
contact with. Schiff cut off the questioning, coaching the witness while refusing to let him
answer the questions.
Schiff coordinated with Ciaramella and Vindman
It is now clear that Ciaramella and Vindman coordinated the entire whistleblower affair with
Schiff and his staff in violation of the "whistleblower" statute. That Ciaramella has been
coordinating his complaint with Schiff committee staffers Abigail Grace and Sean Misko.
Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and
Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the
"whistleblower" complaint.
Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting
on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member
of the Intelligence committee.
The suspicious case of IC IG Michael Atkinson
IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to
allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the
Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new
"interpretive" guidelines.
The level of subterfuge and coordination between Schiff, Ciaramella, Vindman, Abigail Grace,
Sean Misko, and IG Atkinson is more than suspicious. It reeks of yet another episode of a Deep
State coordinated coup attempt.
The whole impeachment affair is a brazen sequel to the Russia Hoax involving many of the
same key players. Susan Rice, John Brennan, Adam Schiff. Designed to target, destroy, and in
this case, fabricate grounds for the impeachment of the President.
The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the
Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not
only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid
mouthpieces for the Deep State.
Paul Sperry and Real Clear Investigations
The most comprehensive expose on Ciaramella, that has forced even the mainstream media to
take notice, was the Real Clear Investigations reporting of Paul Sperry. Only Sperry, the
Federalist, and CDN have exposed the whistleblowers' identity. But his name and transparent
partisan actions are the worst kept secret in Washington.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has said:
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is."
Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United
States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017,
"If you take on the intelligence community, they have nines ways to Sunday of getting back
at you."
The never-ending coup attempt against Trump
The reality is that Trump was targeted by the Obama White House well before he was
President. The ongoing coup against him started as soon as he was elected. It morphed into the
Mueller Weissman inquisition and the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
When that fizzled into oblivion it was time for plan B, or in this case plan C or D. The
Deep State and their paid minions in the left-wing press have been unrelenting in their ongoing
anti-constitutional putsch against the President.
The impeachment farce, with its calculated rollout reminiscent of the Kavanaugh smear
campaign, is yet another extension of a never-ending East German Stassi coup (sic) attempt
against the constitution, the Republic, and the people of the United States.
Sperry lays out the trail of evidence against Ciaramella
Paul Sperry's excellent investigative reporting makes clear that Ciaramella "previously
worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. (He) left his
National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns
about negative leaks to the media." As Sperry reports, "He was accused of working against Trump
and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC official.
Sperry reports that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research
dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill". The
dossier documents Ciaramella's bias against Trump. His relationships with Brennan, Rice, the
Obama White House, and DNC operative Chalupa. As well as his coordination with Vindman, Schiff
and his committee staff.
Chuck Schumer: "Eight ways to Sunday of getting back at you"
It questions both Ciaramella's and Vindman's veracity as a legitimate whistleblower. It
makes clear that Ciaramella and his co-conspirators are part of a Deep State coup attempt. A
calculated, coordinated, illegal, seditious, and illegitimate putsch.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz makes clear, " They're hiding him ." Fleitz was emphatic,
" They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days
after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls
for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'"
How IC Inspector General Atkinson found the whistleblower complaint "credible" and "urgent"
at the same time he was backdating the change in regulations to allow the complaint to be filed
is more than highly suspicious. How the 'whistleblower" coordinated with Schiff, Grace, Misko,
and Atkinson to stager the start of impeachment farce is criminal.
Adam Schiff: Constantly lying while moving the goalposts
... ... ...
Schiff: Outstanding scoundrel in a cesspit filled to the brim with similar criminals.
Now Eric Ciaramella is apparently backing away from testifying. Schiff says he no longer
needs his testimony. But Ciaramella should be subpoenaed and called to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He should not be allowed to escape accountability for his role in
this calculated charade of a conspiracy.
He would then have to testify to his coordination with Schiff and the committee staff. He
would have to expose how Vindmann leaked national security information illegally. How the
entire 'whistleblower" farce was a calculated effort to again derail the Trump Presidency.
A lot has come out about Eric Ciaramella, the Adam Schiff 'Whistleblower", in recent days.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Any legitimate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the
entire Ukraine affair will reveal the extensive criminality of the Obama White House and the
coup plotters.
Exposing the dark underbelly of the Obama White House
It stretches back to the Steele Dossier and the clear efforts of the DNC and the Deep State
to use to a foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election. He exposes the corruption of Vice
President Biden to enrich his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. Details the $6
million dollar bribery scheme of Hunter and Joe Biden by Burisma Holdings.
Lays out the corrupt dealings of Ambassador Yovanovich.
It will lay open the devious underbelly of all the so-called hero witnesses of the Schiff
impeachment Star Chamber inquisition. Of the criminal actions of the coup plotters. Of
Ambassador Yovanovich, Ambassador Taylor, Alexandra Chalupa, and Alexander Vindman.
As well as the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
Calling the Fourth Estate back
It is the tip of the iceberg that only a truly free and independent press will have to
take the reins to fearlessly expose. Like brilliant investigative reporter Paul Sperry at
Real Clear Investigations. Like the Federalist, NOQ Report, and here at CommDigiNews, who
broke the Ciaramella story a full two days before Real Clear Investigations.
No one else in the corrupt media establishment seems willing to rise to the challenge.
Looks like both Yovanovich and Hill are connected to Soros and did his bidding instead of pursuing Trump policies as for
Ukraine. Yovanovich was clearly dismiied due to her role in channeling damaging to Trump information during 2016 elections,
the fact that she denies (as she denied the exostance of "do not procecute list"). And nothing can be taken serious from a
government official until she denied it.
Notable quotes:
"... Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a hate figure on the far right. ..."
"... This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros." ..."
"... "My entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties." ..."
"... "When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to "this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well." ..."
"... Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role. ..."
Fiona Hill, who was the senior director for Europe and Russia in the National Security
Council (NSC) said other NSC staff had been "hounded out" by threats against them, including
antisemitic smears linking them to the liberal financier and philanthropist, George Soros, a
hate figure on the far right.
In her testimony to Congress, Hill described a climate of fear among administration
staff.
The UK-born academic and biographer of Vladimir Putin said that the former ambassador to
Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was the target of a hate campaign, with the aim of driving her from
her post in Kyiv, where she was seen as an obstacle to some corrupt business interests.
Yovanovitch was recalled from Ukraine in May on Trump's orders. In a 25 July conversation
with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump described Yovanovitch as "bad news"
and predicted she was "going to go through some things". The former ambassador has testified
she felt threatened by the remarks.
Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, led calls for Yovanovitch's dismissal, as did two of Giuliani
business associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. All three are under scrutiny in hearings being
held by House committees looking at Trump's use of his office to put pressure on the Ukrainian
government to investigate his political opponents.
"There was no basis for her removal," Hill testified. "The accusations against her had no
merit whatsoever. This was a mishmash of conspiracy theories that I believe firmly to be
baseless, an idea of an association between her and George Soros."
"I had had accusations similar to this being made against me as well," Hill testified. "My
entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls,
conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been
giving this deposition, accusing me of being a Soros mole in the White House, of colluding with
all kinds of enemies of the president, and of various improprieties."
She added that the former national security adviser, HR McMaster "and many other members of
staff were targeted as well, and many people were hounded out of the National Security Council
because they became frightened about their own security."
"I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home. My neighbours
reported somebody coming and hammering on my door," Hill said, adding that she had also been
targeted by obscene phone calls. "Now, I'm not easily intimidated, but that made me mad."
"When I saw this happening to Ambassador Yovanovitch, I was furious," she said, pointing to
"this whipping up of what is frankly an antisemitic conspiracy theory about George Soros to
basically target nonpartisan career officials, and also some political appointees as well."
In Yovanovitch's case, Hill said: "the most obvious explanation [for the smear campaign]
seemed to be business dealings of individuals who wanted to improve their investment positions
inside of Ukraine
itself, and also to deflect away from the findings of not just the Mueller report on Russian
interference but what's also been confirmed by your own Senate report, and what I know myself
to be true as a former intelligence analyst and somebody who has been working on Russia for
more than 30 years."
Hill dismissed the suggestion that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election was a "conspiracy
theory" intended to distract attention from Russia's well-documented role.
The list contains some (but not all) of the key participants of the 2014 coup d'état
against President Yanukovich. There are 13 names in the list: MPs Serhiy Leshchenko, Mustafa
Nayem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Serhiy Berezenko, Serhiy Pashynsky; ex-Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk; ex-Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Hontareva; ex-First Deputy of the
National Security and Defense Council Oleg Hladkovsky; judge of the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine Makar Pasenyuk; candidate for presidency Anatoly Hrytsenko; singer Svyatoslav Vakarchuk;
journalist Dmytro Hordon and ex-Head of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin.
Pashynsky was involved in Snipergate. Yatsenyuk was the marionette chosen by Nuland to head
the Provisional government after Yanukovich will be overthrown.
Almost all of these people from the list were involved in various sort of scandals during
the last five years. Particularly, Oleg Hladkovsky was recently dismissed from his post due to
the corruption scandal in the defense sphere. Serhiy Leshchenko became known for the purchase
of the flat for $275,253 and the number of information attacks at well-known politicians and
businessmen. Serhy Pashynsky was tied to the hostile takeover of a confectionary factory in
Zhytomyr.
In its turn, the U.S. Department of State stated that the
words of Lutsenko are not true and aims to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. Thus, there are certain concerns that the actual list might be fake.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The House is holding its second public hearing with former US envoy
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch centring around her ouster which, according to her, is pertinent
to the impeachment probe against Trump. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
flatly denied allegations that she circulated a list of potential corruption targets in Ukraine
that the United States did not want prosecuted, according to testimony at the opening of
hearings in the House impeachment probe of President Donald Trump on Friday.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a do not prosecute list
was a fabrication", Yovanovitch said. "Mr Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general
who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr
Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead I
advocated the US position that rule of law should prevail."
US President Donald Trump in a series of tweets on Friday
criticised former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's performance while she was
testifying in the impeachment hearing against him. He defended his decision to replace
Yovanovitch - appointed by his predecessor Barak Obama - as the US ambassador to Ukraine, where
she served from August 2016 until May 2019.
....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The U.S. now has a very
strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is
called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for
Ukraine than O.
During Friday's Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko a "do not prosecute list" in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on
left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko "acknowledged that the list never existed" in
April.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a "Do Not Prosecute" list
was a fabrication,"
Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee . "Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian
prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I
did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not
prosecute."
"That is such a lie," Glenn Beck said on Friday's show. "She should be held for
perjury."
During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats' corruption in Ukraine, Glenn
debunked what he called "the most misleading fabrication I've ever seen by the mainstream
media."
Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John
Solomon reported Lutsenko's claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of
"people whom we should not prosecute" during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon's article
was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.
When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch "gave" him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him
anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn't prosecute.
"They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down
himself -- are you kidding me?" Glenn exclaimed. "This is how the media is fact-checking and
debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine's republic. They are planting
dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that
reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning
parts of this entire case."
If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV . With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch
great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations
that let BlazeTV tell the stories
the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what
the media doesn't want you to see.
Read More
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that
aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute
list during their first meeting.
"Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave
me a list of people whom we should not prosecute," Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told
Hill.TV last week.
"My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president
nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,"
he continued.
The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an
outright fabrication."
"We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The
United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General's Office
(PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in
the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for
genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive
projects."
Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.
Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was
actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never
received."
"At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance
worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue," he said. " At that
time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil
servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption
policy."
"Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that
we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy
did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually
rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor
general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied
there was no problem."
"The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen
for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it," he said.
Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents
Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as
ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all
you need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition
between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it
is still a dangerous one. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight
Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko. The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a POTUS
kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins
– Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the
Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal
clear; and it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable
dereliction of duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger
about losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the
Donald from office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the
Deep State, which has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald
has declined to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He
thereby threatens the Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and
impeachment inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in
office – and especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might
actually make peace with Russia and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine would
be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic
aid – a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence
peddling which ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election,
and, in return, incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that
has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
with virtually zero capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders NATO
an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's
imperial self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also
crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be
inadvertently sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads
they are dragging out of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons
– just maybe their utterly preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and
Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the somnolent American public to the absurdity of the
entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the
Donbas rather than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above
was reprinted in the New York Times or The Onion ?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and
Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete
chimera; and the notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer
against Russian aggression is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in
Alaska a decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is
just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a
multitude of nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of
wheat fields. That's not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war
machine capable of threatening the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be
erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar
purchasing terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared to
$2.2 trillion for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines
likely to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work
force. That's a problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age
population – even supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs
– is heading south as far into the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population
will be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is
already just a fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment
anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation
of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of
cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile
ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation
of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans"
among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently
calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and
trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable.
Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what
he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American
continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea
power projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist
of an armada of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics
warfare capability and the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart
weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500
personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air
wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and
attached logistics ships.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero
modern carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the
Israeli paper, Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the
Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a
long history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's
cold waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent
refueling and resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this
smoke belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at
all from the high tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the
Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in
the Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most
technologically advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have
numerical superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor
ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it
across thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing
fighter and attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700
transport and airlift aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous.
Russia is essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed,
for the world's only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat
from Moscow is a prime facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and
relationship with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and
the current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more
than that of Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with
Putin's Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the
tensions that do exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February
2014 were fomented by Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO
machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor,
NATO doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office
pointing out its buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing
up a storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke.
They are fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their
budgets or taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to mention
the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany. Vladimir Putin
isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army taking the Fuehrer-bunker
– but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly
willing to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43 billion on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion
GDP, which happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that
have emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own
book in behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the
final Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2
In Part 1 we dispatched UkraineGater Tim Morrison's preposterous suggestion that
Washington is helping Kiev subdue the Donbas so we won't have Russkies coming up the East
River.
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more
ludicrous. The actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from
Washington when it instigated, funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of
Kiev during February 2014, which illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on
the grounds that he was too friendly with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of
global attention that they commanded .
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist
government with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea
and the Donbas – that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep. And
those interests included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at
Sevastopol in Crimea which had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries
under czars and commissars alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater
detail below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have
been paraded before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the
"invasion" quote cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of
Ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington
rendition of the Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that
dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was
so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he
tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence,
whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country
in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army
rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed
formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to
Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a
shred of truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate
military and economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of
neocon stooges took exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens
and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting
not the constitution and the rule of law, but the bipartisan political consensus on Capitol
Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her Wall Street Journal
platform to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a
military career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the
blunt-spoken American military men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned
Ukraine into a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks,
NGOs, foreign policy experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies
– from DOD through the State Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the
Board for International Broadcasting and countless more – which ply their trade in the
Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes;
they're apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as
they lead the nation to the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing
their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible
disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex
relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance
or the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely
consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's
sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story,
starting with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February
2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align
itself economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the
European Union and NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of
Ukraine then led by Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal
from Moscow than was being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of
Kiev reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the
east and Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine
during the 1930s and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and
back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven
outbreak of Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March
2014 to formally re-affiliate with Mother Russia.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would
remind that Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the last
800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few
and far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals
with or surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks,
Muscovites, Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the
Kingdom of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light
yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars)
ceased their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas
of the map north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which
had emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map
also makes clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk
sharing common linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for
the administrative convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917
per the yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were
amalgamated by absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword
of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the
18th and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating Russian populations to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in
St. Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war
between the so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these
territories and elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist
rulers proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia
into one of its four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR)
– along with the Russian, Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the
infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto
the Red Army and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue
areas (Volhynia and parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated
into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession
struggle in 1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his
supporters in Kiev. That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given
that precious few Ukrainians actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist
Russia after it was purchased by Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers. The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending
Adam's Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial
integrity and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of
history's most despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of
Russian aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region
(yellow area with brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian
and ethnic Ukrainians who predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian,
Moldovan, Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev
in February 2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often
bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all
around to which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea
– have been intimately connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine
share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the
Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's
population and industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the
event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share
strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No
Russian leader of any stripe would survive as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to
be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from
Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there,
according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
spearheaded much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant
effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation
residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct
cultures" causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea,
the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what
they consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its
Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the
national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded
to avoid a violent national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had
campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join
NATO was just plain nuts, as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
"... Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com, ..."
"... Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. ..."
"... State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. ..."
"... The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to January
2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. ..."
"... All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint
project with Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
..."
"... All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. ..."
"... All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media
activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on
the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize
allegations against Paul Manafort. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa
and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. ..."
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could
substantially alter the public's understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment
probe.
As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12
tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these
memos might answer.
Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies
about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary
Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine
corruption and U.S. foreign aid?
CNBC ,
Reuters and
The Wall Street
Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully
considered during the impeachment proceedings.
State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko . He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first
meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko's account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure
Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations
and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?
State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.
There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether
that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did
State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money
and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors' concerns legitimate?
The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to
January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden
ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma?
Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden's role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies
to justify Biden's threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn't fired?
All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine.
The U.S. government's main whistleblower office
is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy
business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct
described by the whistleblower?
OSC has concluded there is a "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" involved in these activities.
All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.
What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors
to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma
or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the
various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?
All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue
a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official
George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma's corruption reputation. Did Hunter
Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end?
What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?
All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home
of the company's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma's American representatives
were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter
Biden's name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma's efforts
to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?
All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department
officials believed Hunter Biden's association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president,
and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden's office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies
tell Joe Biden's office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?
All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social
media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such
monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence
on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts
to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they
react? What were these federal agencies' reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials
had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra
Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government
agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in
2016 on Trump and Manafort?
"... Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of people became wise to what's been happening all along. ..."
"... Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions ..."
"... Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues ..."
"... An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. ..."
From a big picture perspective, the largest rift in American politics is between those
willing to admit reality and those clinging to a dishonest perception of a past that never
actually existed. Ironically, those who most frequently use "post-truth" to describe our
current era tend to be those with the most distorted view of what was really happening during
the Clinton/Bush/Obama reign.
Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically
whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and
economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now
actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of
people became wise to what's been happening all along.
They want to forget about the bipartisan coverup of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, all
the wars based on lies, and the indisputable imperial crimes disclosed by Wikileaks, Snowden
and others. They want to pretend Wall Street crooks weren't bailed out and made even more
powerful by the Bush/Obama tag team, despite ostensible ideological differences between the
two. They want to forget Epstein Didn't Kill Himself.
Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't
accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to
year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions. As such, the
most meaningful fracture in American society today is between those who've accepted that we've
been lied to for a very long time, and those who think everything was perfectly fine before
Trump. There's no real room for a productive discussion between such groups because one of them
just wants to get rid of orange man, while the other is focused on what's to come. One side
actually believes a liberal world order existed in the recent past, while the other
fundamentally recognizes this was mostly propaganda based on myth.
Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least
appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues. In contrast, resistance
liberals just desperately scramble to put up whoever they think can take us back to a
make-believe world of the recent past. This distinction is actually everything. It's the
difference between people who've at least rejected the status quo and those who want to rewind
history and perform a do-over of the past forty years.
A meaningful understanding that unites populists across the ideological spectrum is the
basic acceptance that the status quo is pernicious and unsalvageable, while the status
quo-promoting opposition focuses on Trump the man while conveniently ignoring the worst of his
policies because they're essentially just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Obama. It's the most
shortsighted and destructive response to Trump imaginable. It's also why the Trump-era alliance
of corporate, imperialist Democrats and rightwing Bush-era neoconservatives makes perfect
sense, as twisted and deranged as it might seem at first. With some minor distinctions, these
people share nostalgia for the same thing.
This sort of political environment is extremely unhealthy because it places an intentional
and enormous pressure on everyone to choose between dedicating every fiber of your being to
removing Trump at all costs or supporting him. This anti-intellectualism promotes an ends
justifies the means attitude on all sides. In other words, it turns more and more people into
rhinoceroses.
Eugène Ionesco's masterpiece, Rhinoceros, is about a central European town where
the citizens turn, one by one, into rhinoceroses. Once changed, they do what rhinoceroses do,
which is rampage through the town, destroying everything in their path. People are a little
puzzled at first, what with their fellow citizens just turning into rampaging rhinos out of
the blue, but even that slight puzzlement fades quickly enough. Soon it's just the New
Normal. Soon it's just the way things are a good thing, even. Only one man resists the siren
call of rhinocerosness, and that choice brings nothing but pain and existential doubt, as he
is utterly profoundly alone.
A political environment where you're pressured to choose between some ridiculous binary of
"we must remove Trump at all costs" or go gung-ho MAGA, is a rhinoceros generating machine. The
only thing that happens when you channel your inner rhinoceros to defeat rhinoceroses, is you
get more rhinoceroses. And that's exactly what's happening.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. is an illiberal democracy in practice,
despite various myths to the contrary.
An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty
democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although
elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who
exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society".
There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as
'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be
because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its
liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not
exist.
It's not a new thing by any means, but it's getting worse by the day. Though many of us
remain in denial, the American response to various crises throughout the 21st century was
completely illiberal. As devastating as they were, the attacks of September 11, 2001 did
limited damage compared to the destruction caused by our insane response to them. Similarly,
any direct damage caused by the election and policies of Donald Trump pales in comparison to
the damage being done by the intelligence agency-led "resistance" to him.
So are we all rhinoceroses now?
We don't have to be. Turning into a rhinoceros happens easily if you're unaware of what's
happening and not grounded in principles, but ultimately it is a choice. The decision to
discard ethics and embrace dishonesty in order to achieve political ends is always a choice. As
such, the most daunting challenge we face now and in the chaotic years ahead is to become
better as others become worse. A new world is undoubtably on the horizon, but we don't yet know
what sort of world it'll be. It's either going to be a major improvement, or it'll go the other
way, but one thing's for certain -- it can't stay the way it is much longer.
If we embrace an ends justifies the means philosophy, it's going to be game over for a
generation. The moment you accept this tactic is the moment you stoop down to the level of your
adversaries and become just like them. It then becomes a free-for-all for tyrants where
everything is suddenly on the table and no deed is beyond the pale. It's happened many times
before and it can happen again. It's what happens when everyone turns into rhinoceroses.
* * *
If you enjoyed this, I suggest you check out the following 2017 posts. It's never been more
important to stay conscious and maintain a strong ethical framework.
"... "US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg (foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure him? ..."
"... "Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable candidate in the Democratic Party field. ..."
"... Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected. ..."
"... It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further; two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I did", what or who made you think that you could do that? ..."
"Graham's conspiracy theory-based investigation is rooted in the
baseless allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor in 2016
as a way to protect Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, against a corruption probe. Biden's
son Hunter was previously a board member with Burisma until April this year.
There is no evidence to support allegations that Biden acted improperly in calling for the
prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe to be ousted, and both Ukrainian and U.S.
officials have said there is no merit to the claim. As many have since noted, the Burisma
investigation was in fact dormant when the prosecutor general was forced out on accusations
he was slow-walking corruption probes, among other things.
Trump brought up that debunked conspiracy during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden as well as a
baseless conspiracy involving the Democratic National Committee servers."
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality
of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?" " What
does it mean to say that we know something? ", and fundamentally "How do we know that we
know?"
~ wiki on epistemology
-------------
As in the example above from the "American Independent," the MSM and online projects like
the American Independent incessantly insist that the simple fact that Hunter Biden and his dear
old dad, a "Union Man," solicited money in Ukraine and in China for services not rendered
proves nothing, that nothing has been proven against them and that any mention of these
occurrences is evidence of harsh partisan rhetoric based on fantasy and equivalent to belief in
the Loch Ness Monster.
Well, pilgrims I want to know who and what investigation or investigations cleared the
Bidens of anything.
It is obvious that Hunter is qualified for employment as a bag man and not much else. He has
a law degree? So what? As in the matter of the qualifications of doctors, not all learn much in
medical or law school.
"US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg
(foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure
him?
"Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable
candidate in the Democratic Party field.
The article highlighted here, typically, is a lie. As documented in Moon of Alabama's
timeline (
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/a-timeline-of-joe-bidens-intervention-against-the-prosecutor-general-of-ukraine.html),
Shokin was actively investigating Zlochevsky in February 2016, when Shokin seized his luxury
car. Barely two weeks later, Biden was on the phone to Poroshenko demanding Shokin's firing.
While this doesn't prove that Biden was motivated primarily by a desire to protect his son's
employer, it is certainly consistent with that possibility.
John Solomon has been very much in the lead on reporting from Ukraine which furthers what the
MSM calls "conspiracy theories".
While he earlier reported, or opined, from The Hill,
now he evidently has been bumped (my opinion) from that perch,
and now has own blog John Solomon Report : https://johnsolomonreports.com/
It is tragic, IMO, how the MSM ignores the facts that Solomon documents in his
columns.
It is possible that JS is a mouthpiece for corrupt elements in Ukraine,
but I think his points deserve more attention than they have been getting.
There are two sides to this story, not only one as Col. Lang pointed out in his root
piece.
I recall that the Russiagate conspiracy theory was "proven" factual as well, and by many of
the same people who claim that Biden's corruption has been "debunked". Even though it was
absurd on its face and had been debunked numerous times, many people in fact continue to
insist otherwise.
Seriously....who would think Biden's son taking a highly paid position with a company in a
foreign country that Biden was representing the US in wasn't a conflict of interest? Even the
'appearance' of a conflict of interest should be avoided in such situations.
I find Biden and his political 'career', greased by his 'good old Joe act' disgusting in so
many ways it would take too long to describe them here.
The media really seems to be testing the limits of disinformation. More and more, the media
wants to convince people that black is white and up is down. Fortunately, I don't think their
plan is working all that well.
In the case of Hunter Biden, we are told that "There is no evidence to support allegations
that Biden acted improperly".
Okay, that's one way to look at things, but I have found that even among my liberal
friends, the fetid smell of corruption emitting from this case, is overpowering. And while
most people might have a hard time sinking their teeth into a "quid pro quo", they do have a
pretty good grasp of old fashioned influence peddling, which is what we are talking
about.
So why has the media chosen to defend the crooked goings-on of public officials who were
obviously up to no good? Don't they care about their credibility at all?
Was the American Independent quote lifted from The NY Times? It sure sounds like it!
For some time I've been wondering how exactly Biden got cleared. Was there any formal
investigation? Who conducted it? And how reliable are the facts when they come from a place
like Ukraine, where anything, including the 'truth,' can be laundered?
What's become painfully obvious is how eagerly America's major news outlets, including the
journals of record, participate in the laundering of truth.
Of course, that should have been obvious from the yellow journalism preceding the war in
Iraq.
What's really scary are reports that "intelligence" services get most of their 'facts'
from the very same truth laundering sources.
I always got the impression the "wild, debunked conspiracy theory pushed by right wing nuts"
was always referring to the Crowdstrike DNC computer investigation hoax that Trump tried to
re-open.
They would never specifically refer to the Crowdstrike favor Trump specifically asked for
in the phone call, instead they would substitute Trump asked about some "debunked, wild right
wing conspiracy".
So they never explained how the Crowdstrike investigation hoax was debunked either.
To me this is far more interesting missing debunked conspiracy link - since it shows
incredible coordination between the DNC, the "leak" of their DNC computer data, Ukrainian
Crowdstrike, and finally the Mueller Report who used the DNC Crowdstrike investigation
conclusoin hook line and sinker to reach their own official conclusions which is now "proven"
operating dogma. Without ever doing an independent investigation themselves. How often does
that happen?
To me the Crowdstrike connection begs further investigation - why would a Russian hating
Ukrainian who was running Crowdstrike point the finger at the Russians and claim they
"hacked" the DNC computers, but not let anyone else touch those same computers to corroborate
that conclusion?
And then parlay this into Trump supporting Russian interference in the 2016 election. All
too tidy for me. Feels like dark forces are still at work, and subverting language to achieve
their ends.
Whatever happened to Joe Biden's taped boast, at the Council on Foreign Relations, that he
gave President Poroshenko 6 hours to fire Prosecutor Shokin -- or else lose $1 Billion of US
aid ?
How was this taped confession of QUID-PRO-QUO debunked ?
The media (approx. 99% of them) have been in the tank for Democrats since at least the
Vietnam war.
Roger Ailes said why he didn't read the NY Times:
"You cover the bad news about America. You do. But you don't get up in the morning hating
your country."
Eight days later Joe Biden launched an intense pressure campaign to get rid of Shokin. He
personally calls Poroshenko on Feb 12, 18 and 19 to press for firing Shokin.
To think that this is unrelated is not reasonable.
The rest of the
timeline shows further Biden influence in the case.
(I should update that timeline as a lot of additional evidence of Burisma lobbying State
at that time has since come in.)
There are tons of additional dirt. The U.S. has control over the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and uses it to push all such investigations to its favor. NABU has
itself been involved in serious corruption.
There is also a USAID/Soros paid NGO that has a similar function and is equally corrupt.
These organizations are used as weapons to put all Ukrainian assets into the hands of
those that the U.S. embassy likes.
Lutsenko was the guy who was appointed as Prosecutor General after Biden got the previous
one fired. IOW Lutsenko owed his job to Biden.
Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and
embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as
their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been
bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing
Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected.
The only thing I can conclude is that Lutsenko is probably just trying to survive the
shifting tides in the Ukrainian swamp and will say or do whatever it takes.
"American Independent" is David Brock's Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll
brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment,
the Globalists and the Deep State. https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/1198338991814250497
It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further;
two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian
prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I
did", what or who made you think that you could do that?
"... It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion? ..."
"... The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine. ..."
"... Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. ..."
"... Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model. ..."
"... The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is not the issue. ..."
"... I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the most blatant coup in history". ..."
"... This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam. ..."
"... This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief. ..."
"... When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. ..."
he Wall Street Journal 's Peggy Noonan liked what she saw when U.S. diplomats George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. went
before the House Intelligence Committee to give testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment drama. She saw them as "the old America
reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
All true. Kent, with his bow tie and his family tradition of public service, appeared to be the very picture of the old-school
American foreign service official. And Taylor, with his exemplary West Point career, his Vietnam heroism, and his longtime national
service, seemed a throwback to the blunt-spoken American military men who gave us our World War II triumph and our rise to global
dominance.
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue
to them, since it is the same geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy establishment,
of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing
America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither
gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or
the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in
what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
Both Taylor and Kent declared that America's vital national interest is wrapped up in Ukraine, though neither sought to explain
why in any substantive way. Spin out all the potential scenarios of Ukraine's fate and then ask whether any of them would materially
affect America's vital interests. Any affirmative answer would require elaborate contortions.
It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of
Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has
a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion?
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's
rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to
the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an
extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv
that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point
of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments."
And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment] controversy that we are discussing today."
In contrast to this misleading rendition, here are the facts, with appropriate context.
In 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification,
the West would not seek to exploit the situation through any eastward expansion -- not even by "one inch," as then-secretary of state
James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually
led right up to the Russian border.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany.
As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in
NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the U.S. Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles
up against the soft underbelly of the Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and industrial capacity at
risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries
share strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive
as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to
gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded
much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign
nation -- and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
But Ukraine is a tragically divided nation, with many of its people drawn to the West while others feel greater ties to Russia.
The late Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures." Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal
of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in
Crimea, the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they consider their Russian heritage.
The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear
that the national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent national confrontation.)
In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych,
to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These
actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations
aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western
Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria
Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she
declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian
coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that
enables U.S. meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine
(the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated
a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by
Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia -- the global "heartland,"
in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder -- renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability
to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural
tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive
player -- aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the
U.S. government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive
when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian
orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and
aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze
Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues
and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
American diplomacy is rather reminiscent of German diplomacy in 1917, in that expanding NATO into Ukraine and the Baltics is as
stupidly provocative to Moscow as the Zimmerman Telegram was to the US. Zimmerman's offer was incredibly stupid since it provoked
a US declaration of war but Germany had absolutely no way to provide Mexico any material assistance. Neither will NATO be providing
any real assistance to Ukraine or the Baltic states if the balloon goes up -- today's Bundeswehr is not your grandfathers Wehrmacht.
True. The stupidity of US policy toward Russia can only be defeated by stupidity of the limitrophus of Eastern Europe, like Poland
or the Baltic states. If "balloon goes up" they will be first to evaporate.
Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is
involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. The first person to speak out publicly was the former diplomat (and godfather of "Containment")
George Kennan. In his last public comment, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning against pushing NATO to the East as
a policy guaranteed to cause Russian fear and resentment. In the early years of the century, Mikhail Gorbachev - no friend of
Putin's - accused the West of trying to treat Russia like a third rate nation. It is sad that the "deep state" maneuvers against
Trump (up and running early enough to destroy Paul Manafort) derailed Trump's plans to talk openly with Putin and thus earn him
the blind hatred of John Brennan. The rest is history.
You need a foreign policy update. Ukraine and Europe are not longer our problems. They have grown ideologically distant and opposed
to US interests, which is self interest and transactional foreign policy now. The days of "altruistic" foreign policy are over
with. Marshall died long ago.
This is totally inaccurate. The current Russian system is not socialist, and it certainly has problems with corruption, but it
is opposed to the Western establishment and it is promoting a traditional Christian and nationalist outlook as opposed to the
liberal globalism of the Western elites. It is better than the alternative at the moment, and in a sense Putin, especially
his foreign policy , is executing the will of the people in Russia. Conservatives opposed Russia up until Trump because both
sides are controlled by the same Western establishment, which has been pursuing an anti-Russian agenda for a long time. They do
not want any resistance to their liberal world order.
"Democracy" is a lie and a fraud, Plato knew this 4,000 years ago, and "class consciousness" is only real in the sense that
the current situation in the West has an elite that is going against the interests of the people. I don't see how defending Russia
is "undermining class conscientious," actually arguing against the anti-Russian warmongering is a good thing. What "Russian state
attacks" are you talking about?
"To see US conservatives defending an autocracy reflects they have embraced those fascistic principles."
Do you even know how conservatism and the terms right and left wing originated? Conservatism and the right wing are terms that
are from the French Revolution, used to describe supporters of the Catholic French Monarchy of the Bourbons while the liberals
or the left were the revolutionaries. Historically Conservatives defended European Christian monarchies while the liberals always
wanted to overthrow throne and altar to replace them with secular democratic republics. In fact there is nothing more conservative
than autocracy, namely a Church-anointed monarchy. Americanism, or the ideology of the American founding fathers, was inherently
liberal. They were in revolt against the monarchy of their time. There is nothing conservative about democracy, it's quite to
the contrary. Autocracy is not "fascistic," that term is completely irrelevant in this historical context.
"Seeing similar headlines from opposite political poles exposes a 'horseshoe' phenomenon of left/right ideologies in which
the two poles are close together in significant contexts."
Are you really going to be so grug brained as to unironically bring up the horseshoe theory? Looks like we have a big brained
intellectual centrist over here. Not even worth giving an in depth analysis on this one.
Good comment. The Monarchists sat on the right side of the French assembly and the revolutionaries sat on the left. That is how
the modern spectrum morphed into Fascism (corporate state) on the right and Communism (revolutionary) on the left.
I've actually been to Russia, twice in the last year and a half, and I had a chance to meet and to converse with, and to hear
from, Russians of all sorts: academics, students, politicians, government employees, businessmen, environmentalists, scientists,
and journalists.
Based on what I saw and heard, I categorically reject your statement that Russians "are not all that free to express their
opinion."
I heard from people who are well known in Russia who disagree with Putin. I heard criticisms of the government from people
who are not well known, or who are just average people. People note that corruption is still a problem, at many levels of society
and government, but they did not seem at all reticent to make that point.
No one displayed any fear or reluctance to express his views. At the same time, Russians acknowledge a great deal of improvement
since the tragedy of the Yeltsin years.
And while there are people who criticize the government's domestic policies, they tend to be much more in support of what the
government under Putin has accomplished in terms of foreign policy. And that seems to me to be a very rational reaction.
First off I am Russian myself. Most people are in favour of an authoritarian government, nobody cares about or wants democracy.
Monarchist restoration would be ideal but Putin is good enough for now. Free press and elections are a fraud and a lie, as I said.
First of all, show me one single state on the planet today which is pro working class. Secondly, juxtaposing the concepts of working
class and fascism is just a demonstration of how badly you know the history. Suffice it to say that the set of political views
deriving from the ideas of Mussolini are called right-wing socialism. Hence, your ignorance of history logically begets that of
today's politics. No, Trump and Putin cannot be called truly pro working class. But they're at least are not so blatantly anti
working class as neolibs who oppose them.
Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism
is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention
to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model.
Except that isn't what this is about. The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not
have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is
not the issue.
But we do know from the testimonies that they oppose Trump BECAUSE he changed Ukraine policy away from the policy of confrontation
with Russia, or tried to. They are all against that and against Trump doing that, as they said. The entire establishment has opposed
Trump on this since he got elected. So let's not be disingenuous. This charade has gone on long enough. The elites want their
proxy war with Russia.
1. From my perspective, the article is saying that our Ukraine policy is immoral, not that the impeachment is not founded.
2. Further to 1. above, your pizza analogy doesn't hold up. If pizza is bad for you, eating pizza harm nobody but the eater
and the eater's insurers.
By contrast, our Ukraine policy is the support of actual live Nazis and has resulted in the deaths of numerous innocents, not
to mention the economic destruction of Ukraine.
This is more like providing one pizza company weapons and support, knowing full well that they will use those weapons and cash
to murder rivals and customers who order from those rivals.
The good news is that the influence of apparatchiks like Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor will be at an end within a few years. America
thought the blood of hundreds of thousands of foreign children was a "fair price" to pay for the dollar's continued role as a
reserve currency (Madeleine Albright's words) and cheaper gas at the pump. The effort was a bust. Endless trillion-dollar-a-year
deficits will come to an end quickly. There isn't that much liquidity in the private sphere to sop up at the price the U.S. Gov
can afford.
Americans have forgotten how much money a billion dollars is, much less a trillion: to wit, the Democrats future plans are
priced in dozens of trillions of dollars. Is it even possible to count that high (given that no one has any real idea how the
economy will react)?
Boomers destroyed the country. It only took one "me" generation to introduce such deep structural instability that there is
no recovery. Really, does anyone think a trillion dollars a year of demand can ever be pulled out of the economy? No. Does anyone
really think a trillion dollars a year will magically appear for free, from nowhere, for a decade or more? The intelligentsia
will reap the fruit of its effort within a few years. And it will be dried cat food for dinner. Bless them!
What "actual bloody invasion" of Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and got a bloody nose
for their trouble. They didn't lose any territory however, which is odd, if Russia were the attacker.
If Russia had actually invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army would be obliterated in days or hours. Note how there are
some 500 miles of open border between Donbass and Sumskaya Oblast - but no fighting? Do you think that the Russian military doesn't
know the geography of their own border?
Ukraine was already devided before it separated from USSR. People from western Ukraine called Russians and eastern Ukrainians
moskali. Eastern Ukraine spoke mostly Russian, western Ukraine spoke mostly Ukrainian. I believe tension escalated after Russia
was about to loose access to the Black Sea and its navy there. Sorry. That was a big mistake to even think that it would happen
easy. Russia annexed Crimea from Ottoman Empire in 18th century. Since then it was part of Russia. Khrushchev transferred it to
Ukrainian republic in 1954. You seriously believe that Russia would easy let it go after almost 2 centuries of its presence there?
Big chunk of Russian history associated with Black Sea Fleet.
The invasions were in response to them trying to acquire NATO memberships and NATO egging then on to do this and provoke Russia.
If they remain in the Russian sphere than that would not be a problem.
NATO goes where it was warned not to go, provokes the response it knew it would get, and claims that this is "aggression."
What a joke.
There was no "Russian meddling", that was debunked. There is no evidence that the DNC was hacked and the so called troll farm
had no connection to the Russian government and was merely a business marketing firm selling advertising space on their social
media pages.
Russia doesn't poison dissidents in foreign countries, if you are referring to the Skripal case, that narrative has fallen
apart, multiple journalists have written lengthy pieces about all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the UK government's
narrative. Not to mention Yulia Skripal said she's still wants to go back to Russia, so clearly she doesn't think Russia poisoned
her.
We do have evidence to the show the opposite. The only ones who examined the DNC servers are a firm that was caught lying about
Russian hacking before and is owned by a Ukrainian millionaire that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Can't get more damning
than that.
What are you even talking about? The DNC refused to allow the server to be examined because they know there was no Russian hacking,
and why would Trump privately ask Zelensky to investigate Ukraine's role in all of this if he knew he were guilty? The point is
there is no evidence to prove Russian hacking, and the only claims come from a firm that is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who
has been caught lying about Russian hacking before and donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
How much mental gymnastics are you going to use to try to pretend like you don't understand?
Which is more aggressive, do you think -- invading one's neighbors, or "dangling the prospect of NATO membership" for them?
The US engineered and supported a coup in Ukraine to overthrow the constitutional government. Is this aggression? It seems
so to me. It certainly preceded any Russian response. As far as NATO membership for Ukraine, polls of Ukrainian opinion long before
the Maidan showed very strong feeling against Ukraine joining NATO.
I believe, when all facts fail, that the way through to some would be pointing out the absurdities of what they hear therefore
think. It might make them think twice before publicly embarassing themselves.
The Western actions are more aggressive, because they actually happened...
Russia's annexation of the Crimea was bloodless, and doubtless spared it the carnage that the regime in Kiev wrought in Donbass.
America's movements since the end of the Cold War have been consistently offensive in nature, and Russia's consistently defensive
in nature.
That defense has included counterattacks, feints, and opportunistic thrusts. In every 'attack' it made, Russia was reacting,
not taking the initiative.For their part the liberal hegemonists know what they're doing. Good PR is priceless, and they know it's essential for offensive
movements to not appear that way.
Problem is, you liberals are still unable to prove a single allegation of those you uttered in your comment.
How come the previous Ukrainian government didn't manage to beg one single satellite pic of, say, Russian tanks crossing their
border from the CIA or the DIA, given the purported "bloody invasion"? Russian armored vehicles have some cloaking devices or
what?
How come the Mueller's so-called "investigation" turned out to be such a pathetic juridical failure, given the purported "direct
meddling"?
What a naive poor dear one has to be to believe in poisonings with radioactive substances (as dangerous to the poisoner as
to his victim) in a world where poisons causing deaths looking like those from natural causes exist and are available to all secret
services (and even to private citizens having talents in chemistry)?
Plus, careful with (ab)using upper case. "Democratical countries" with a capital "D" reads like "countries, whose governments
are proxies of the Democratic Party". Blame Freud and his slips.
I love people like you. I mean since we were invaded by Germany, Napoleon, Charles the Tenth of Sweden, the Teutonic Knights,
the Golden Horde (Ghengis Khan started this), at the cost of countless millions of lives lost, I sense that we- as Americans-
have every need to push our frontiers to Russia's doorstep.
You demonstrate a phenomenal ignorance of Historical perspective: exactly the cannon fodder the establishment's looking for.
Nice and sober account. One detail that might be significant. Until 1954, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation (the Russian
State has wrestled that territory from the Tatars/Mongols and Ottomans more than 200 years before and fought for it against the
united Europe in 1850s). And Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, had bestowed Crimea in an unsanctioned administrative decision to
the then Ukrainian Socialist Republic in 1954.
Ukraine as a state is pretty much a creation of Russia and instead of being grateful for their extensive statehood, elements
in Ukraine would rather bite the hand that made them.
Lots of people all over the world get up and go to work. They do it in democracies, autocracies, and countries that are somewhere
in between. In fact, the United States is losing its position as global economic hegemon in large part because the Chinese (no
democracy there) are harder working than Americans.
The United States currency has value for two reasons - inside the United States, it's the only way you can pay taxes. Outside
the United States, the gulfie tyrannies only accept dollars for international sales of oil.
$5 billion thrown down the Ukraine rat hole. It is too bad that the money wasn't spent providing better care for our wounded veterans.
Watch the video "Delay, Deny, Hope They Die". As one of the very few, perhaps only, commentater who has criticized Victoria Nuland's
role in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, I have made many of the same points in recent days.
You know that is dishonest. This has nothing to do with what Trump tried to tell Zelensky, and anyway the US and Ukraine do in
fact have a treaty from 1998 that mandates them to cooperate on law enforcement matters. DC is full of corruption but none of
it is ever punished, so we know that is not the issue.
This is all about Trump's desire to end the proxy war with Russia. That is all this is about ultimately. Looking at the big
picture, that is a large part of the reason why the establishment wants to delegitimization him or remove Trump from office. This
phone call scandal is nothing more than the latest tactical move to get there. If you don't see that, and you genuinely think
that this is merely about Trump asking Zelensky to investigate something and get caught up in the minutiae of that, you are simply
naive and don't understand the true nature of politics. Think about the big picture.
A proxy war is nice cover for weapons smuggling. I've postulated for awhile now that Benghazi is the key to Deep State. Ask yourself
why the Obama administration allowed Stevens and his cohorts to die when there was ample air and naval power nearby. What did
he stumble upon? I think it was a vast smuggling operation designed to support Muslim Bros. and Al Shabbab-both of whom later
attacked US assets and who continue to worry the region with their raids of kidnappings, rapes and mass murders that go largely
unreported in the US press. There's a reason why so many liberals her and abroad claim to support open borders and it has nothing
to do with humanitarian goals and everything to do with an organized global crime group who is using sievelike borders to allow
drugs, fake licensed products, fake pharmaceuticals, weapons and even humans to become trade goods. People should really ask why
Democrats refuse to stop this. Europeans should ask who is getting rich off of unchecked migration of indigent people.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the
most blatant coup in history".
Exactly. This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan
government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also
made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
This is true, all of this could have easily been avoided if the US stopped meddling and withdrew its troops from the former USSR.
People like Taylor and Kent show there is an agenda to start a war with Russia. Hopefully the upcoming Ukraine-Russia peace summit
can settle this conflict.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
That's a strawman and there's nothing to refute, the article is correct. Because the US government and CFR globalist thinkers
like Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Friedman, and George Soros have talked about the geopolitical importance of Ukraine since the
1990s -- read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard from 1996, where talks about the need for the US to take control of Ukraine from Russia
to prevent Russia from becoming a great power that can challenge US global hegemony, or Soros' admission on a 60 Minutes interview
from 1998 that he has invested billions in Ukraine, particularly in the Ukrainian military. As Brzezinski says, the US was quick
to recognise the geopolitical importance of an independent Ukrainian state, and became one of Ukraine's strongest backers in the
1990s for this reason. Globalist plans for Ukraine go back many years.
Polls before the Maidan show most Ukrainians had a very positive image of Russia as well, and increasingly people in Ukraine
are getting tired of the war, which is why they voted massively for Zelensky over Poroshenko.
When I look at our foreign policy, before Trump, you have to go back to Reagan to have any semblance of policy based in reality.
While Trump is kinda of a bull in a china shop, at least he highlights some of the asinine policies the 'experts' have been pursuing.
Russia's objection to US and EU interference into Ukrainian politics makes as much sense as US objection. would if Russia were
in Mexico attempting to draw them into a confederation with Moscow.
He may be as immoral as hell. Most of them, R or D, are, in case you haven't noticed. The fact is, there's still no factual evidence
he committed any impeachable in this specific case.
So, if the employees of the government who are involved in international affairs do not agree with the President, the President
is accused of an impeachable offense? These two are not patriots in the usual sense. Nor are they public servants. They see themselves
as somehow above the Law. Above the Constitution. Applauded by those trying ever since the election to bring down a President.
Seditionists.
The last 30 years has been a complete disaster for US foreign diplomacy. We are being led by complete morons! Trump is a big step
in the right direction.
The fact is, it was a U.S. sponsored coup by the Obama administration that overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
Here is the Feb 2015 Obama CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria...note that Obama says 'Yanukovich fleeing AFTER we brokered a deal
to transition power in Ukraine'...incredible. Play
Hide
Why is it wrong and improper to know whether or not a presidential candidate's family was involved in corrupt dealings abroad?
But that's not even the question, because the issue of what Trump may or may not have done is not the real issue. DC is full of
corruption and none of it is ever punished, so we know that's not what they care about. What this is about is Trump's disagreement
with the establishment on Russia-Ukraine policy and the greater geopolitical picture. Thinking this is about some minutiae over
who said what on a phone call and what he mayor may not have really meant is naive and ignorant of the true nature of politics.
These situations are not compartmentalised, these have to be seen from the the big picture of geopolitics.
He sensible policy would be to Finlandize Ukraine and Byelorus. NATO would not have them as members and Russia would let them
pursue economic ties with Europe. This worked for Finland through put the Cold War and kept the region peaceful
This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all
the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief.
That's a problem.
When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he
invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. Why? Who is Vindman reporting to if not the President? Too many of these folks
act as if the change in administrations is merely a formality to which they can choose to embrace or not. Almost without exception,
we have seen testimony from people whose personal history is in the Russian/Ukraine theater and who have family and history there.
This is problematic. If anyone ever looked and sounded the part of a mole, it was Vindman today.
These maniacs are provoking nuclear war.
They fail to understand that, unlike 50 years ago when America had a decentralized industrial economy and banking system, 2
large nukes aimed at NYC and DC would destroy the country.
This is the only conservative site worth reading. I do love me some serious and deep analysis from Conservatives in important
geopolitical issues. God for a return to the days of Buckley. It would be glorious.
Fantastic analysis of the 3D chess game. But we are talking about Biden and Clinton so we need not overthink this. Obama gave
1 billion of taxpayer money to Ukraine. Ukraine gave Burisma some of that according the government of the UK. And once Burisma
was in receipt of our aid funds, millions flow through right back to the very same bad actors like Biden who directly controlled
the one billion in foreign aid. I wish this was more complicated. I wish it made Americans seem smarter. But to this old guy it
seems like a good old fashioned and very simple run of the mill scam . And in this scam the only person we know for fact cashed
the checks is Biden.
Come on Barr. It's time to do what we all know what needs to be done.
"But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that
the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18
trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6
trillion?"
An excellent question. The cold war is over. We won. We don't need to keep fighting it. Russia is not that much of a threat
to us.
Think about it. Our State Department has been in operation for well over 100 years in some form or another. Are we ANY safer?
Fire them all. No pension for failure.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding US values and psychology are not his strong
suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point among US policymakers.
-- Henry A. Kissinger in 2014 at the start of the Ukraine crisis (writing in the Washington Post.)
I cannot believe that the State Department was unaware of the intertwined history of Russia and the Ukraine or rather given State's
rigid worldview I can believe it. The Russians knew perfectly well that the United States was pulling the strings of the so-called
Maidan revolution and that the end would be to plant Nato and the EU right on Russia's doorstep.
Previous attempts to push Nato into parts of the south of the former Soviet empire had been fought off. Nothing could be more
predictable than that the Kremlin would do everything it could to oppose what it saw as hostile interference in the Ukraine on
behalf of "reformers". The US plays by the same rules. Cuba and the earlier Monroe doctrine are prize exhibits.
Obama slotted temperamentally into the State Department worldview or maybe it was the other way round. It was a worldview that
got the Middle East profoundly wrong at every turn including misundertanding the Arab Spring, support for the deeply anti-Western
Muslim Brotherhood, the appeasement and promotion of Iran, the abandonment of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran, the destruction
of Libya as a going concern and how to tackle Syria. If there was an opportunity to get something wrong, Obama and the bow ties
managed it. They left behind a trail of wreckage.
Worst of all, Obama, the great opponent of nuclear proliferation, turned out to be its greatest enabler but ensured that he
would be long out of office when it happened and the media started asking "who lost Iran?" If Obama achieved one thing, it was
finally to kill off nuclear non-proliferation as a viable ambition. A nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to its neighours. It is
a direct missile threat to the EU which has happily collaborated in advancing Iranian power.
Unsurprisingiy, Trump rejected all this and it is for this that he is vilified by the foreign police dinosaurs who try to delude
the nation into believing that even when what they do ends in manifest disaster, there is no alternative. There is hardly a word
leaked by the foreign policy to the willingly ignorant media that is not a lie. The mess is theirs and they hate Trump for wakening
Americans up to their self-serving, somnolent incompetence.
The usual response to posts like this is to accuse the writer of being a traitrous Putin lover. On the contrary, know thy enemy.
The maxim doesn't mean have a beer with him. It means understand him.
Excellent statement of the "Thucydides trap" argument for caution regarding Russia and its traditional sphere of concern. But
Merry leaves us with a cliffhanger: what is the sound US Russian policy given his concerns and cautions? Moreover, his rendition
is vulnerable to a counterargument, namely, that Putin's Russia has gone far beyond the seizure or control of "protective lands"
towards an encirclement or menacing of Europe. This can be seen unfolding in Russia's military presence on Syria's (and potentially
Libya's) Mediterranean coast, its sale of weapons to Turkey, its connivance with Iran's Middle Eastern proxy wars, and the potential
for petro-blackmail of its energy customers. Add to this the affirmative case for European interest in Poland, whose capital Warsaw
is exposed to attack from its eastern and southern flanks just as Moscow is immediately threatened from its western and southern
flanks. Perhaps all this just confirms how far down the path to the "Thucydides trap" the principal parties have traveled. Yet,
all the same, on what grounds do we rationalize Russian inroads into the Mediterranean? Free navigation of the seas?
I like this article but Russia is no longer a declining power technically. It's GDP is slowly rising again in the last few years.
They did take a hit from sanctions and low oil prices but they are staring to recover to some degree.
Russians like Putin because their economy is much better now than it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The problem this country has with Russia is that they were a declining power and now are back on the rise. China is more of
a threat but the imbeciles in the establishment keep focusing on trying to undermine Russian security. They seem to really believe
Putin is their enemy without realizing the overwhelming majority of Russians have issues with our stupid foreign policy.
Google Russian GDP, especially through time, and you'll see what I mean.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such. Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at
the local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
One thing that few appreciate is that US actions in the Ukraine in 2013/14 prompted Russian retaliation in the 2016 election.
The Russians had been playing by our rules. (Party of the Regions won a free and fair election in the Ukraine) and then we supported
a violent extra-constitutional takeover.The Obama administration wanted to see a repeat of the performance in Kiev, in Moscow
with Putin playing the part of Yanukovych. The Russian response was to attack the fault lines in American Society. Their ultimate
goal is to see the kind of rioting in the US that we had supported in Kiev in the Winter of 14.
American diplomacy has become dangerously simplistic and one-dimensional in outlook. Turkey bad, Kurds good. Iran bad, Israel
good. Russia bad, Ukraine and NATO good. You try talking with Russia, Iran or Turkey you'll be crucified in domestic politics.
Russia on the other hand doesn't have this simplistic view. They wisely recognize that the world is varying shades of gray.
Excellent piece. Bottom line: the Ukraine is within Russia's "sphere of influence", not ours. Not our problem. The last time a
major power attempted to insert itself within another country's sphere of influence was in 1962. Anybody remember the Cuban Missile
Crisis?
Mr. Merry is entitled to his point of view, but I find his remarks to be out of touch -- sort of like another "Chicken Kiev" speech
with the date "2019" slapped on it. Perhaps he would benefit from a couple of tours of duty in Kyiv, like George Kent and Bill
Taylor. Then he would appreciate the fact that the United States does have real interests in preserving Ukrainian sovereignty,
along with the independence of all the former Soviet states who have split off from Russia. He should also not be so quick to
characterize Kent's and Taylor's testimony. They were in Congress not to express a policy position on Russia, but to act as fact
witnesses to the potentially impeachable actions of the President and his circle. So, let's not get into conspiracy theories about
what "elites" believe. It's one short step from that to muttering darkly about the 'Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such.
Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at the
local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
"... She looked to be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd been a victim of. ..."
"... I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be provocateurs. "Gosh." ..."
"... And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he does. ..."
"... Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on. Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a return to normalcy? ..."
"... Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings. ..."
... She seems to live alone, alone with her work. She tried living with her 88 year old mother
three years ago but that did not last. What would the old girl have done with herself in Kiev
with her daughter working all the time?
So, the maman went home to the States. Marie is still employed as a Career Ambassador
(a high rank) in the Foreign Service of of the United States She is currently assigned at
Georgetown U.
That's the first time I've seen "winsome" used with an edge.
I watched her for some time and didn't know what on earth to make of her. She looked to
be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd
been a victim of.
I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the
pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous
diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be
provocateurs. "Gosh."
A very safe pair of hands, is what would be said of both and almost certainly often
is.
I did know what to make of the histrionics just before the recess. They looked false. That
man wasn't really crying. And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my
eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he
does.
EO,
Zelensky did not like her and suggested that she was involved with corrupt people and
undermining the President. I don't understand how Trump gets all of the blame for her being
relieved of her position.
Marie IMO was always the second best looking girl in the class but maybe teacher's pet,
and has never had anyone take anything away from her before. "Gosh." She doesn't look like
someone you could safely make a pass at unless you had an awful lot of rank.
Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on.
Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory
oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a
return to normalcy?
Then again, since when does a Presidential emissary not only criticize him and the
President of her host country, but also instruct local law enforcement on which oligarchs he
may investigate and which oligarch's (admittedly ours) he may not.
Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter
Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue
pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about
Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings.
To take your cue, Ambassador Marie is a secular nun with very bad ideas, who wandered to a
profession she is not at all suited.
The State Department, where I worked for 24 years as a Foreign Service officer (FSO) and
diplomat, reminds me a lot of my current hometown, New York City. Both places spend an
inordinate amount of time telling outsiders how great they are while ignoring the obvious
garbage piled up around them. It's almost as if they're trying to convince themselves that
everything is okay.
Like New York City telling itself the Broadway lights mean folks won't notice the homeless
problem and decaying infrastructure, the State Department fully misunderstands how it appears
to others. Across Facebook groups and internal channels, FSOs this week are sending each other
little messages tagged #FSProud quoting former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's closing soliloquy
from her impeachment testimony.
Yovanovitch's testimony otherwise read like an HR complaint from hell, as if she were
auditioning for a Disgruntled Employee poster-child position to cap off her career. She had
already been fired by the time the alleged impeachable act took place -- Trump's July 25 phone
call -- and was stuck in a placeholder job far removed from Ukrainian policy. She witnessed
nothing of the "high crimes and misdemeanors" the House is investigating, and basically used
her time to complain she knew more than her boss did so he fired her.
At the end of her
testimony , Yovanovitch unfurled a large metaphorical flag and wrapped herself and the
entire Foreign Service in it. Her lines had nothing to do with Ukraine: they were recruiting
boilerplate about how FSOs are nonpartisan servants of the Constitution, how they all live in
harm's way, yada yada. She name-checked diplomats from four decades ago held hostage in Iran,
and rolled in a couple of CIA contractors when tallying up the "State" death toll from
Benghazi. She omitted the we-don't-talk-about-that-one death of FSO
Anne Smedinghoff in Afghanistan, whose 25-year-old life was destroyed participating in a
propaganda photo-op.
This is the false idol image the State Department holds dear of itself, and people inside
the organization today proudly christened Ambassador Yovanovitch its queen. Vanity Fair
summed it up better than the long-winded FSOs bleating across social media: "A hero is born
as Yovanovitch gives voice to widespread rage at State. 'I think people are feeling huge pride
in Masha,' says a former ambassador." Yovanovitch uses her Russian nickname, Masha, without
media comment, because of course she does.
And that's the good part. Alongside Yovanovitch, bureaucrat-in-a-bow-tie George Kent issued
pronouncements against Trump people he never met who ignored his tweedy advice. Ambassador Bill
Taylor leaked hoarded personal text messages with Trump political appointees. Taylor's deputy,
David Holmes, appeared deus ex machina (Holmes had a photo of Yovanovitch as his Facebook
page cover
photo until recently!) to claim that back in the summer, he somehow overheard both sides of a
phone conversation between Trump and political appointee, EU ambassador Gordon Sondland. Holmes
eavesdropped on a presidential call and dumped it in the Democrats' laps, and now he's
nonpartisan #FSProud, too.
Interesting that the major political events of the last few years have all crisscrossed the
State Department: Clinton emails and Foundation shenanigans, the Steele Dossier and all things
Russiagate, and now impeachment and Ukraine. And never mind that two major Democratic
presidential candidates-in-waiting, Clinton and Kerry, had a home there. That's an awful lot of
partisanship for an organization bragging about being nonpartisan.
Gawd, I need to wash my hands. I am #FSProud that in my 24 years as a diplomat, I never
perjured myself, or claimed to or actually did eavesdrop on someone else's phone call, then
spoon-fed the info months later to my boss on TV to take down a president mid-campaign, all
while accepting cheers that I was nonpartisan and thinking my role as a snitch/bootlicker was
going to help people view my organization as honorable.
FSOs see themselves as superheroes who will take down the Bad Orange Man. The organization
flirted with the role before: "
dissent " by State strayed close to insubordination opposing Trump's so-called Muslim Ban.
Everyone remembers the Department's slow-walking the release of Hillary Clinton's emails (after
helping hide the existence of her private server). The Department turned a blind eye to
Clinton's nepotism in hiring her campaign aides (remember
Huma ?) and use of America's oldest cabinet position to create B-roll ahead of her soiled
campaign.
Maybe the State Department's overt support for Candidate Clinton did not make clear enough
what happens when the organization betrays itself to politics.
While FSOs are gleefully allowing themselves to be used today, they fail to remember that
nobody likes a snitch. No matter which side you're on, in the end nobody will trust you,
Democrat or Republican, after seeing what you really are. What White House staffer of any party
will interact openly with his diplomats knowing they are saving his texts and listening in on
his calls, waiting? State considers itself a pit bull when in fact it's betrayed its golden
nonpartisan glow. Hey, in your high school, did anyone want to have the kids who lived to be
hall monitors and teacher's pets as their lunch buddies?
The real problems go much deeper. A Government Accountability Office (GAO)
report showed more than one fourth of all Foreign Service positions were either unfilled or
filled with below-grade employees. At the senior levels, 36 percent of positions were vacant or
filled with people of lower rank and experience pressed into service. At the crucial mid-ranks,
the number was 26 percent unfilled.
The thing is, that GAO report is from 2012 , and it showed similar results to one
written in 2008. The State Department has danced with irrelevancy for a long time, and its
efforts to be The Resistance as a cure today feel more like desperation than heroism. State's
somnolent response, even during the mighty Clinton and Kerry years, to what should have been a
crisis call (speculate on what the response might be to a report saying the military was
understaffed by 36 percent) tells the tale.
As the world changes, State still has roughly the same number of
Portuguese speakers as it does Russian among its FSOs. No other Western country uses
private citizens as ambassadors over career diplomats to anywhere near the
extent the United States does, where about a third of the posts are doled out as political
patronage mainly because what they do doesn't matter. The secretary of state hands out lapel
buttons reading " Swagger
"; imagine a new secretary of defense doing the same -- and then being laughed out of
office.
FSOs wade in the shallowest waters of the Deep State. Since the 1950s, the heavy lifting of
foreign policy -- the stuff that ends up in history books -- mostly moved into the White House
and the National Security Council. The increasing role of the military in America's foreign
relations further sidelined State. The regional sweep of the AFRICOM and CENTCOM generals, for
example, paints State's landlocked ambassadors as weak.
State's sad little attempt to stake out a new role in nation-building failed in Iraq , failed in Afghanistan , and failed in Haiti . The organization's Clinton-Kerry era joblet promoting
democracy through social media was a flop. Trade policy has its own bureaucracy outside Foggy
Bottom.
What was left for State was reporting, its on-the-ground viewpoint that informs
policymakers. Even there the intelligence community has eaten State's sandwiches with the
crusts cut off lunch -- why listen to what some FSO thinks the prime minister will do when the
NSA can provide the White House with real-time audio of him explaining it in bed to his
mistress? The überrevelation from the 2010 Wikileaks documents dump was that most of
State's vaunted reporting is of little value. State struggled through the Chelsea Manning trial
to convince someone that actual harm was done to national security by the disclosures.
For the understaffed Department of State, that leaves pretty much only the role of concierge
abroad, the one Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch, and their lickspittles Kent and Holmes,
complained about as their real point during the impeachment hearings. Read their testimony and
you learn they had no contact with principals Trump, Giuliani, and Pompeo (which is why they
were useless "witnesses," they didn't see anything firsthand) and griped about being cut out
of the loop and left off conference calls. They testified instead based on overheard
conversations and
off-screen voices. Taylor whined that Pompeo ignored his reports.
Meanwhile, America's VIPs need their hands held abroad, their motorcades organized, and
their receptions handled, all tasks that fall squarely on the Department of State. That is what
was really being said underneath it all at the impeachment hearings. It is old news, but it
found a greedy audience repurposed to take a whack at Trump. State thinks this is its moment to
shine, but all that is happening is a light is being shined on the organization's partisanship
and pettiness in reaction to its own irrelevance.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well:
How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper's
War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent .
The State (War) Department is really the neocons viper nest
Notable quotes:
"... Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold. They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public this week. ..."
"... Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth. ..."
Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These
people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving
in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a
foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold.
They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just
say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public
this week.
Straight fire out of Peter Van Buren. The State is the "The Blob." They're the ones who
want to promote a policy of interventionism and nation-building. The military actually
prefers to stay out of wars and don't want to pursue nation-building.
Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or
Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire
consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military
is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth.
"... Senator Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot. ..."
"... "Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website Rare . ..."
"... "Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job," Paul notes in his piece. ..."
"... Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and holding office in the National Security Council. ..."
"... It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join him at the State Department. ..."
Senator
Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State
Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot.
"Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the
president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a
neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website
Rare .
Abrams was intimately tied in with the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, and was even
convicted of withholding information from Congress about covert government activities in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. He was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
"Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his
previous job," Paul notes in his piece.
Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup
against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and
holding office in the National Security Council.
Senator Paul urges Trump not to appoint Abrams, adding that his "neocon agenda trumps his
fidelity to the rule of law."
Paul points out that during the election, Abrams publicly spoke out against Trump's
intention to withdraw from policing the world.
"He is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president's opposition to
nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was
unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, 'the chair in which
Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit,'" Paul writes.
It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join
him at the State Department.
Paul, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes Tillerson "will continue the
search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the
mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead."
Nice and focused and succinct...love the Mao quote...
The higher the monkey climbs, the harder he will fall...
That describes Scumbag Pompeo in a nutshell...worth hearing this brief history of the
lardass pathological climber...
I have said this before...Trump is still the best of what's on offer in the fake democracy
of empire...
His opponents are hoisting themselves on their own petard...the more pathologically
determined they get, the bigger the bomb exploding in their face...Wile E Coyote 101...
The simple fact as I see it is that Trump is basically alone, which is not surprising
because who among the Washington creatures is going to agree with any of his sensible
agenda...which most notably is to get out of Syria and Afghanistan...and 'get along' with
Russia...
Regardless of anything else bad that he thinks is good...which includes enabling Israeli
colonialism and other things...if he were able to actually pull off those agenda items it
would be a very good step forward...
Now he has been tied up quite effectively by the opposition ['resistance'] but he's still
managed to at least break open northeastern Syria for the government to return...a big
plus...
As far as hopes to somehow take him down...that is delusional...he's a tough cookie who's
dealt with much tougher customers than these half wits in Washington...
People forget that the POTUS has tremendous power, even all alone and stranded on an oval
office island...he is not going to be brought down like Nixon...that era is over...plus he's
not as dumb as poor Dickie...
At the same time, there will be no scumbags going to jail for the massive hoax of
Russiagate and what amounts to a domestic color revolution attempt that they perpetrated on
their own people...
The Trump plan is to simply remain in office, which almost certainly he will do, and then
we may see Prometheus Unbound...
Taylor is a neocon and he is against detente with Russia. So he is part of State Department
nest of neocon vipers.
Taylor was very evasive. but he is a trained diplomat. Taylor will definitely regret his role
( and may be already started to regret ) but he has nothing to lose; he is old enough to
retire.
Notable quotes:
"... I love how CBS completely edited out Nunes first part of his speech about all the lowlife activities the left pulled. ..."
"... My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he was talking about the United States. ..."
My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at
the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he
was talking about the United States.
I have learned to HATE everything the Democrats, their deep state and MSM stand for. It's
beyond comprehension that they have hijacked the greatest nation on earth and subverted the
constitution for personal power and gain! A government takeover by the citizens is not far
off, and the only people who will be safe are a few Republicans in government.
Now this amounts to the impeachment of The President of the United States, for "shaking
the confidence of a close partner for our reliability" Ambassador Taylor. 21:21
18:40 - 19:50 Turner gives a
confused explanation of the "6th Amendment" - right of criminal defendant to “to be
confronted with the witnesses against him” versus The Hearsay Rule - which is evidence
(statements made outside court setting) that may or may not be admissible at trial. Which, in
part, why Judges are present to rule on whether exceptions, exclusions to the Hearsay Rule
apply.
He obviously had his script written before this hearing and didn't listen to what was
actually said. He referenced things that were never even brought up but were talking points
for the Democrats.
...What a blinder and hypocrisy in the highest echelons of power. What a little petty
thinking....Democrats are clearly communists. Do you Americans know what this mean? Obviously
not.
Democrat lunacy on parade Taylor was about as clear as mud and so where his he said, they
said, or i heard someone say something, are we really taking these people seriously.?
Do these republicans not realize that the Ukrainian President is going to say whatever
trump tells him to say so he gets his money and weapons....he’s got a war going on and
must have those resources...what else is he going to say?
If Giuliani seeking information in Ukraine is such an abnormal thing as to cause alarm
then please explain DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa and the years she has spent in Ukraine
performing opposition research along with maintaining close ties with the NSCand the Obama
whitehouse.
There is no evidence against Trump and Taylor was so tongue-tied that he couldn't answer
some of those questions. I loved Jordan asking all those questions and putting those two
witnesses in place. In the court of law they WILL NOT TAKE HEARSAY because I worked for the
courts and lawyers so I know what the Judge would say. this is nothing but a scham and when
Trump gets to be President again I hope he puts Schiff in prison!!!!!!!
"... It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he needs to speed things up. ..."
"... The ambassador also shows her true state between various masks she wears during impeachment interviews, the cameras have an easy time capturing it, it's a smirk, & she seems to show it to the democrats as well. One bad actor. ..."
"... For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey, McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper, Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this country apart. ..."
"... Was she even actually intimidated? She had already known Trump's opinion of her job performance for some time. She had been reassigned, as was the administration prerogative. There was no threat to take further action against her. Trump merely again stated he was unhappy/disappointed wherever she had been assigned. ..."
After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today's impeachment testimony to
rebuke President Trump for "witness intimidation," President Trump hit back.
During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over
Twitter, saying "
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad
. She started off in
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke
unfavorably about her..."
Following Trump's tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read
Trump's tweet aloud - asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump's tweet might have on future witnesses, to
which she replied that it would be "very intimidating.
Trump's tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the
Washington Post
that Trump "talks and acts like a Mafioso" in an article entitled
"Yovanovitch hearing confirms that
Trump is running a thugocracy
."
Following Schiff's dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to
which he said "I don't think so at all."
"
I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do
,"
Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's
"allowed to speak up" and defend himself.
It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these
bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald
Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he
needs to speed things up.
We are at a turning point in our history. The Dems and
their Deep State agents have once again proven that they will go to
any lengths to destroy the constitution, upend the rule of law, lie,
cheat, steal and twist words to accomplish any goal.
The ambassador also shows her true state between various masks she
wears during impeachment interviews,
the cameras have an easy time
capturing it, it's a smirk, & she seems to show it to the democrats
as well.
One bad actor.
I pretty much stopped having an ounce of sympathy for Trump this
week. On day two of his presidency he should have locked up Hillary,
and he didn't. He then has the ******* balls to tell us that "they"
meaning the Clintons "are good people". Are you ******* kidding me ?
? ?
For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has
known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey,
McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper,
Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream
Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this
country apart.
And what exactly has Trump done to bring these people to justice
for treason and seditious conspiracy ? Jack ******* squat !
Epstein allegedly gets murdered in his cell/disapears, and all
Barr does is ******* shrug his shoulders like Schultz and says "I
know nothing". Assange is slowly being murdered in his cell while
Trump claims " I never heard of Wikileaks". Snowden and Manning are
enemies of the state, and nobody seems to care.
Meanwhile the entire country is being overrun up to our eyeballs
with illegals, the mentally ill are walking around like a zombie
apocalypse and the rule of law is totally dead.
As that photoshopping suggests, these Democrats live in an altered
reality. Fantasy. Insanity? Not sure Joseph Goebbels meant telling
oneself lies over and over eventually turns them into truths. But it
seems to for these Democrats.
And they vote their fantasies...
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and
thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."-
Joseph Goebbels
Was she even actually intimidated?
She had already known Trump's
opinion of her job performance for some time.
She had been reassigned, as was the administration prerogative.
There was no threat to take further action against her.
Trump merely again stated he was unhappy/disappointed wherever she
had been assigned.
"Intimidated"?
B.S. She is/was supposedly a top diplomat/negotiator.
If her skin is that thin, and she is that easily "intimidated",
then she is clearly at a job level well above her competence.
of course, during her testimony,
she would not even have known
about the tweet,
much less been allegedly intimidated by it,
nor could her "testimony" been affected in any way by the tweet,
except that Adam Schiff showed it to her to elicit a response.
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
"... To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam. If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart person. ..."
"... Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college degree. Not making this up. ..."
"... The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival. ..."
"... Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the troglodytes who will be asking her questions. ..."
"... You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able to do your job better and go home each night ..."
"... It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve." ..."
14 November 2019Understanding the Foreign Service Officer Nerd Behavior by Larry C Johnson
A group of lions is called a "pride." A group of crows is called a "murder." A group of
geese is called a "gaggle." So what do you call a group of Ambassadors? A pomposity (that term
was coined by Colonel Lang when the two of us were working on an exercise on Iran and there
were three Ambassadors huddled in a corner scheming--brilliant).
There are two types of Ambassadors--political appointees and Foreign Service Officers who
have made their way to the top of the Foreign Service mountain. The two fellows testifying at
the opening of the House Impeachment inquiry -- Kent and Taylor -- are Foreign Service
Officers. They are a strange lot. There are some exceptions who are normal people, such as
Ambassador Morris (Buzz) Busby and Ambassador Anthony Quainton. I worked for Buzz and dealt
with Ambassador Quainton on a variety of policy issues.
I conducted training for U.S. military Special Ops forces for several years in the aftermath
of 9-11. My task was to teach them how to understand the culture of the Foreign Service
Officers and offer tips on how to interact. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks,
U.S. SpecOps personnel were deployed to U.S. Embassies around the world and were having some
trouble interacting with the so-called diplomats.
To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass
these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have
convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam.
If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart
person.
Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special
Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the
FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could
actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college
degree. Not making this up.
The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new
heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and
non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in
the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival.
Let me give you a personal example. A female Ambassador who was a Deputy in the Office of
the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism had a blow up when I helped a Navy SEAL Commander, who
was detailed to State, revamp a memo she had already approved because an important overseas
asset deployed for responding to a international terrorist incident had been inadvertently left
out of the memo. When my SEAL buddy went in to brief her on the change she started screaming at
him, broke her lamp and threw a bottle of hand lotion at him. If she had been a man my friend
would have physically retaliated. Instead, my SEAL buddy walked out of the office and recounted
the incident to a Civil Service employee in the office. That employee happened to be the
neighbor of Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, who was in charge of S/CT during that time.
When Ambassador Burleigh learned of her outburst he called her to his office and read her
the riot act. What did she do? She assumed I was the one (I was not) who had ratted on her to
Ambassador Burleigh. She set out to destroy me. My boss at the time was a retired Marine Corps
Colonel, Dominick "Dick" Gannon. What a gentleman. I counted him as a mentor and a second
father. Hard as woodpecker lips and a man who lived by a code of honor.
Dick prepared my fitness report and submitted it to his supervisor, the crazy female FSO.
She demanded he change it to trash me and he refused. So she waited. Dick went overseas on a
diplomatic mission and the female Ambassador snuck upstairs to the 7th floor (i.e., the
Secretary of State's suite). She filed a complaint against Dick accusing him of failing to do
the evaluation in a timely manner. Fortunately, the admin person she talked to, Joanne Graves,
looked it over, saw that Dick had signed and informed the female FSO that the person who had
failed to act in a timely manner was her. She was furious but beaten.
Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's
witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of
Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the
troglodytes who will be asking her questions.
I am not saying that all FSOs are like this. But a large number are. You will be seeing
another one of these critters in Friday's testimony.
Ah, troglodytes ... a decade ago I was told that I was one too. Because I can ... count.
As a student I worked in a marketing company that sold US credit cards. My part of the job
was more honourable: I was tasked with administering the phone numbers called to do that.
It's like that with these numbers: You call someone and he sais " Never ever call me
again, never ever, you a**hole " the number is blocked to be recalled for 6 weeks and was
then called again. If the person agrees to appointment with a seller, the number is blocked
for a year etc pp.
The point is, the more you call the less numbers you have left. Call in a city for a week,
starting with 5000 numbers - after a week you're left with, say, 300 (mostly crap).
To make after that many or any more appointments then is simply impossible or requires a
lot of luck or, much worse, to re-use the numbers by nullifying all blockings (= burning
resources).
It's that simple: To make fried eggs you need eggs, a stove and a pan (or a really hot
engine hood), to make bricks you need clay, if you want to drive from Europe to Vladivostok
you need ... a visum, money, time, food, good weather, a warm jacket, to know russian, have a
robust car and a lot of fuel etc pp.
One day another employee (nice ties, glued hair and IMO seriously business study damaged)
negotiated a new contract with the credit card company with very ambitious goals, without
asking whether we had the resources (phone numbers) to achieve that.
And we didn't have what was needed and the bosses decided and chose not to buy more
numbers. So I told the unfortunate guy tasked with achieving the demanded sales that, with
the numbers left, we simply couldn't do it.
I was then wildly insulted to be a ... troglodyte, wicked, mean, illoyal, evil, that I
would lie and some more of that sort. I was fired 15 minutes later, which annoyed as hell
but, on the plus side, with luck led me to a three times better paid much better job
elsewhere.
The part more entertaining me was that I was absolutely correct, which I learned a few
months later from a former colleague:
The company was bankrupt eight weeks later, and the guy who fired me had a burnout or
mental breakdown three weeks later. One of the bosses went from having been a millionaire to
work as a waiter. The contract partner simply chose another "executor" (who was amusingly
employing the same salesmen).
So, I was right, and what did it give me? Not much but a bad experience and, with luck,
something much better elsewhere. Alas, and good riddance.
Yes, it's not often that someone who is right first gets the credit. It's true in business,
educational organizations--well everywhere I ever worked. I just got used to someone else
getting credit for things I had put in place first.
You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able
to do your job better and go home each night.
It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the
credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making
decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve."
I am struck by the fact that a woman mentioned above actually threw a bottle of hand
lotion at a SEAL who came to Main State to brief her. Much the same thing happened to me with
a male FSO who was DCM in an embassy in which I was DATT.
I had drafted a lengthy report to DIA that described the local armed forces as inept and difficult to train. The embassy had
the right to append remarks to my report but not to change it or block it without my
agreement. The DCM tried for half an hour to pressure me into changing my report to make it
more favorable to the local forces.
When I refused repeatedly to do so he threw the fifteen
page message form across the room at me. I got up and left, leaving it where it fell. After
talking to the ambassador the man apologized and the embassy sent my message.
Someone's ox is getting slowly and methodically gored. Solomon's reporting on Ukraine and
the State Department has been spot on and backed up by solid evidence.
"... And, of course, it wouldn't be good, old-fashioned Washington gunslinging if she didn't pin the blame on somebody else. In this case, it was former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and former White House chief of staff John Kelly -- portrayed by Haley as duplicitous snakes who sought to undermine the president behind his back. ..."
Her messaging confirms what many have long suspected: Nikki Haley is a human weathervane, trying to ingratiate herself to the
boss (she knows Trump will remain a popular figure within Republican politics for years to come) while at the same time distancing
herself from his most controversial actions.
And, of course, it wouldn't be good, old-fashioned Washington gunslinging if she didn't
pin the blame on somebody else. In this case, it was former secretary of state Rex Tillerson and former White House chief of staff
John Kelly --
portrayed by Haley as duplicitous snakes who sought to undermine the president behind his back.
She is a neocon and people arent going to vote for more war. She has no real accomplishments. I think she would make an interesting
candidate. A republican woman is generally not as loopy left wing as the democratic women running just because their women. Personally
Nikki does not represent my values and I wouldnt vote for her.
Well, what does that tell ya about the continuing corruption and ruining of America's elections systems in this evolving, shallower
society and the major 'news' media being 'neo-con' run or influenced as such?
It's ridiculous and I'm being kind, that people with no qualifications are seriously being given money and given media exposure
such as- Buttgieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and some others with low IQ's and only want the ego tripping and be one of the 'elites'
all their non-productive lives.
So, Nikki Haley is seriously one of those to lead America?
You now what, people who vote for these clowns, clowns that never worked in their lives, are just plain shallow too. But...the
big donors give these characters money so that they will continue the terrible neo-con foreign policy.
Now, may I ask, as a fella that was born in another nation:
how come I use my real name but Nikki Haley and others do not?
I laugh, as did others, over the years when I say-you would think, that a guy with my name, being a Palestinian/Arab/Moslem heritage,
would be the last one to do that!
Well, how 'bout that question in our great big country America? Dig?
Opportunism of this one is so sky high that it resembles a cartoonish psychopath. Even her name is not real. A pathological liar
who took up barking as a profession because that is what sells these days. Tragedy of America is that snakes move high and up.
This is how filthy neocon fifth column typically works: "The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of
military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting
President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain." Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless
it was directly from Trump it's just a hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
"It’s absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls “the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed,” neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies."
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member
or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, saying: " I think
it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. "
To which Sondland replies " Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal
clear no quid pro quo's of any kind, " adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
On Tuesday, Mr. Taylor directly addressed accusations surrounding Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Burisma, a Ukrainian
gas company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., one of the leading Democratic candidates
for president.
He "drew a very direct line in the series of events he described between President Trump's decision to withhold funds and refuse
a meeting with Zelensky unless there was a public pronouncement by him of investigations of Burisma and the so-called 2016 election
conspiracy theories," Ms. Wasserman Schultz said. -
New York Times
As the
Washington
Post notes, Taylor said "By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned
on the investigations of Burisma," the Ukrainian gas firm which employed Hunter Biden, "and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. elections."
He's a Liar. There's no QPQ. We have the transcript of the call. No QPQ. This Frail looking Douche Bag is lying. He's obviously
on the Ukrainian-Take like the rest of them. DNC kept Servers in the Ukraine. Why would they do that??? (wink, wink)
Democrats have called the testimony the most damaging account yet, as Taylor provided an "excruciatingly detailed" opening
statement, according to the
New York Times .
Taylor was a democratic appointee from the Obama administration...shocker. And he was the only one suggesting this was politically
motivated. Sondland corrected him immediately. Nobody else, including the Ukrainians, agree with his "interpretation".
Schiff's bitch said it like he was told to. Nothing to see folks.
Bobzilla. Do not piss him off , 12 minutes ago
link
Wasn't creepy uncle joe doing a quid pro quo when he said no billion $ unless you fir the prosecutor?? Seems the demonrats
have two sets of rules. ******* hypocrites.
That's right, I followed everything Ukraine in detail in 2013, so did my Mom who is 81. She knows more Ukraine than any of
my dirtbag Democrat friends. Hunter Biden corruption old news.
First of all Ukraine had already started to investigate Biden and Burisma in March, second of all the aid was turned over to
them already and there is no resolution to the investigation yet. Third, the Ukrainians have gone on the record saying there was
no pressure. Last, the president has a responsibility to look into corruption even if it was a Demonrat.
Tandem of CIA and the State Department against Trump ?
Notable quotes:
"... Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios ..."
"... Last month, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her out for having an anti-Trump agenda. ..."
"... McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic political objectives. ..."
On Monday, the House committees conducting impeachment inquiries into President Trump released transcripts of testimony from several
witnesses, including former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and career diplomat and former senior adviser to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, Michael McKinley.
Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to
oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening
an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios
Yovanovitch, who left her position in May, testified that she "assumed" Trump's lack of support for her stemmed from a "partnership"
between Giuliani and Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko .
Last month, Deputy Secretary of State
John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her
out for having an anti-Trump agenda.
McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign
service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic
political objectives." -Axios
"Meet the witnesses: Diplomats start off impeachment hearings" [Associated Press].
"Diplomats and career government officials, they're little known outside professional circles,
but they're about to become household names testifying in the House impeachment inquiry . The witnesses will
tell House investigators -- and Americans tuning into the live public hearings -- what they
know about President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine First up will be William Taylor, the
charge d'affaires in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy Assistant Secretary in the European
and Eurasian Bureau, both testifying on Wednesday." • You can read the full article for
the bios. First, William Taylor:
"Op-Ed in Novoye Vremya by CDA Taylor: Ukraine's Committed Partner" [ U.S.
Embassy in Ukraine ]. From November 10, 2019, the penultimate paragraph. I've helpfully
underlined the dogwhistles:
But as everyone who promotes democracy knows, strengthening and protecting democratic
values is a constant process, requiring persistence and steady work by both officials and
ordinary citizens. As in all democracies, including the United States, work
remains in Ukraine, especially to strengthen rule of law and to hold
accountable those who try to subvert Ukraine's structures to serve their personal aims,
rather than the nation's interests .
It's kind of Taylor to let the Ukrainians know who's really in charge of foreign policy,
isn't it? Now, Kent–
"George Kent Opening Statement At Impeachment Hearing: Concerned About
"Politically-Motivated Investigations" [
RealClearPolitics ]. From the full text as prepare for delivery:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to
flee to Moscow.
By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British
imperial might without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of
Lafayette's organized assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul
Jones' navy , Congress has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five
years in desperately needed train and equip security assistance to Ukraine.
Similar to von Steuben training colonials at Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied
trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv near the Polish border, and
elsewhere.
Are these people out of their minds? See, e.g., "America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis" [
The Nation ]:
Not even many Americans who follow international news know the following, for example:
That the snipers who killed scores of protestors and policemen on Kiev's Maidan Square in
February 2014, thereby triggering a "democratic revolution" that overthrew the elected
president, Viktor Yanukovych, and brought to power a virulent anti-Russian, pro-American
regime -- it was neither democratic nor a revolution, but a violent coup unfolding in the
streets with high-level support -- were sent not by Yanukovych, as is still widely reported,
but instead almost certainly by the neofascist organization Right Sector and its
co-conspirators.
§ That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
(To be fair, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis we supported weren't slaveholders, unlike to many of
our own Founders. So there's that.)
The Hearings should be in a room that lets in sunlight, that universal disinfectant. Make
the Front Row Kid Careerists sit by the windows.
Thus far, my main reaction is that the State Department needs to be shaken up to get rid of
those entrenched FRK'ing Careerists and to bring in some accountability. Inspector General
positions and functions should not be optional at the whim of some SoS or other.
Not change for its own sake, just bringing things out of the shadows. In keeping with my
light theme, a Sunset Provision would help, too. That is one step toward eliminating the
hearsay, innuendo and nonsense suppression of Due Process as that is anti-Constitutional. The
people, including back-row, dropouts and all, deserve better from their government.
who said
this today in an official gov't press release?
"Today, Russia – led by a former KGB officer stationed in Dresden ‒ invades
its neighbors and slays political opponents. It suppresses the independence of the Orthodox
Church in Ukraine. Russian authorities, even as we speak, use police raids and torture
against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians who are working in opposition to Russian aggression. In
Chechnya, anyone considered "undesirable" by the authorities simply disappears.
In China – in China, the Chinese Communist Party is shaping a new vision of
authoritarianism, one that the world has not seen for an awfully long time. The Chinese
Communist Party uses tactics and methods to suppress its own people that would be
horrifyingly familiar to former East Germans. The People's Liberation Army encroaches on the
sovereignty of its Chinese neighbors, and the Chinese Communist Party denies travel
privileges to critics – even German lawmakers – who condemn its abysmal human
rights record. The CCP harasses the families of Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang, who simply
sought refuge abroad. We – all of us, everyone in this room – has a duty. We must
recognize that free nations are in a competition of values with those unfree nations."
House Democrats on Tuesday released excerpts of closed-door depositions with former US
Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, as well as revised testimony from US Ambassador to
the EU, Gordon Sondland which was a complete reversal from what he said in text messages
revealed last month as well as prior testimony.
In them, Sondland reveals in four new pages of sworn testimony he told a top Ukrainian
official that a meeting with President Trump may be contingent upon its new
administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the New York
Times.
Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the
Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. -New York Times
Bloomberg reports "Sondland testified that a promise by Ukraine to investigate Joe
Biden's son and the 2016 election was a condition that "would have to be complied with"
for the country's leaders to get a meeting with Trump."
"That was my understanding," he said.
SO if that is Sondland's [mis]understanding, let's compare. Read his Sept 9 text message
to Taylor.
The image of Biden and son in link, speaks truth. Take a look.
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be
impeached and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?[.]
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a
transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President
Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the
Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was
not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons
to Ukraine altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He
passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press
conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would
not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky
requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime? [.]
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro
Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a
prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed
to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund
from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.[.]
Ever since the whistleblower complaint from inside the CIA first surfaced against President Donald Trump,
a steady stream of national security and State Department officials have testified about their consternation at his dealings
with Ukraine. The dominant impression that they have left, however, is that they are blurring the line between what constitutes
unsavory behavior when it comes to pressuring Ukraine for information on domestic political opponents, on the one hand,
and what are legitimate policy disagreements. Indeed, it appears that they are, more often than not, substituting their
own political judgments for the president's when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy-something that should
concern Democrats as much as Republicans. A whole caste of government officials seems to believe that for an American president
to aim to improve relations with Russia is an illegitimate, even treasonous, aspiration.
Today was no exception. Consider the testimony of State Department official Catherine Croft. In her brief opening statement,
she declared, "As the Director covering Ukraine, I staffed the President's December 2017 decision to provide Ukraine with
Javelin anti-tank missile systems. I also staffed his September 2017 meeting with then-President Petro Poroshenko on the
margins of the UN General Assembly. Throughout both, I heard-directly and indirectly-President Trump describe Ukraine as
a corrupt country." The implication was that Trump had no business complaining about corruption in Ukraine. But why not?
The persistence of corruption, which President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected by an overwhelming majority to combat, is
hardly a secret.
Perhaps even more revealing was Croft's declaration to the House Intelligence Committee that in November 2018 the White
House refused to approve the release of a statement condemning Russia for seizing three Ukrainian ships located close to
Crimea. It sounds damning at first glance. But once again, why shouldn't Trump have practiced restraint in this instance
if he was intent on improving relations with Russia, a platform that he was elected on? As it happens, the Zelensky campaign
depicted the ship incident as a political provocation on the part of the Poroshenko government.
The implicit assumptions that appear to guide these veteran members of the bureaucracy were even more obvious in the
case of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. As the media has underscored, he is the first person to testify in the impeachment
inquiry who participated in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Initially, Trump's defenders sought to portray him as guilty of "espionage" or dual loyalty because he emigrated to America
as a toddler. But this was always preposterous. More telling is that Vindman, no less than Croft, epitomizes a mindset that
seems to regard a deviation from the strictures of the foreign policy establishment as by definition unacceptable.
In his opening statement, Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression."
He added, "the U.S. government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise
of reforms will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy
and economic prosperity." But what if Trump has a different view of matters than the "U.S. government policy community's
view"? After all, Trump was elected in part on his explicit declarations that he would not rely on the experts who had plunged
America into Iraq and Libya.
Consider as well the attention that Vindman has lavished upon Trump's phone call with Zelensky. According to Vindman,
portions of the call he considered important were not included in the document kept by the government that was released
to the last month. This includes President Trump claiming there are recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing
Ukrainian corruption, and President Zelensky specifically referring to Biden's son's company, Burisma Holdings. The document
released by the administration includes Zelensky talking about "the company" and Trump saying, "Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution," which is an interpretation of a video of Joe Biden describing how the Obama administration
made firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin a prerequisite for receiving foreign aid. Vindman's recollection
of the call does not change the substance of what was already understood. However, the changes in language are being portrayed
as more analogous to Richard Nixon editing the White House tapes than the routine process that produced a routine document.
"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president and was alarmed, testified
that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript," blared the New York Times headline.
For two months, major media outlets have described the document as a "transcript," as a shorthand term. But as the document,
and TNI's previous reporting
makes clear, it is not a transcript in the strict sense of the term. "This is what's known as a memorandum of conversation:
MEMCON. It is a standard tool that is used throughout the government and the procedures can vary from agency to agency,
or who your boss is. But generally, they're all done about the same way," explains Peter Van Buren, a former Foreign Service
Officer in the State Department.
"In my own experience in government for 24 years it's a pretty standardized practice. The idea is, for all sorts of reasons,
most interactions are not recorded. Instead, they're memorialized through this process of MEMCON. Typically, while there
are many people who may be listening in or present at a meeting, someone (or sometimes two people) are designated as official
notetakers and they take down the conversation. And they're not trying necessarily to get an exact word-for-word account,
but they're certainly trying to get an idea for idea. And in many cases when you're dealing at the White House level, they
are getting it pretty much word for word," Van Buren tells TNI.
As a participant on the phone call, Vindman would have been one of the early editors. As the process continued, officials
higher than him made changes, just like the editor of a magazine would for a writer. The precise reasons for the changes
are open-ended and probably unknowable. There exists no evidence that the changes were nefarious or anything other than
mundane word choice. The document released to the public is the official U.S. government record of what happened.
John Marshall Evans, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Ambassador to Armenia, narrows down what should be the
focus of this inquiry-and what it's actually becoming. "The issue is indeed not one of policy, which the President can change,
but of the purpose that was pursued in the July 25th call: whether it was in the national interest or a private gain," he
says. So far, no one has shown that Trump demanded that the Ukrainian government produce a specific result or fabricate
evidence about the Bidens.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supposed to hold a House vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, after a barrage of criticism
from Republicans for moving forward without one. Whether the open hearings and public testimony will provide any more substance
than a parade of national security bureaucrats ventilating their grievances about a president who sought to take a different
course in foreign policy is questionable.
Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.
Complete bull. The truth is that there is no Russian aggression. What we're seeing from Russia is actually pushback against
American aggression. The US is trying to turn Ukraine into a NATO member, knowing that doing so would severely undermine Russia's
national security. The American goal is to reduce Russia's influence in world affairs, and to be in geostrategic position to relate
to Russia coercively. Little wonder, then, that Russia lashed back by taking Crimean and Donbass.
For Vindman to assert that Ukraine is "bulwark against Russian aggression" and a matter vital to the US's national interests
only goes to prove that America is under the influence of liars. The American people are being mislead about the truth.
Ukraine's on Russia's front door step. It overlaps with Russia territorially, demographically, and geopolitically. By entering
Ukraine for strategic reasons, the US has provoked and threatened Russia. There is no justification for this reckless foreign
policy move by the US.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense. Every foreign
policy move this president has made has only benefited Russia, not the US! Secondly, I have slowly but surely become convinced
Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc. I don't know what Putin has on Trump (but I think money laundering would be a
solid guess) or if it's the promise of Putin's blessing for a Trump Tower Moscow, but whatever it is, he has Trump in his back
pocket. And lastly, if everyone has not figured out all The Donald cares about is money in his pocket they are fools. Face it,
writer, you either have bought that bag of magic beans Trump sold the electorate in the last election or you are being willfully
blind to who and what this 'man' is.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense.
That's confusing. How exactly is America doing something for Russia at the expense of the US? If you really believe this, then
you've been fooled by American propaganda into thinking that Ukraine is an extension of the continental US. The reality, of course,
is that Ukraine is on the other side of the world, and does not in any way matter to America's vital national interests.
In Ukraine, America is overstretching its ambitions, and is behaving like an aggressor.
Let's start with the sanctions passed by Congress on Russian oligarchs for invading the Ukraine. Somehow, they just weren't
imposed until Trump was forced to. Then there is the deliberate sabotage of all of our alliances. Now it's stabbing the kurds
in the back so Putin and Erdogan can split that area up between them. The only thing Trump, Turkey and Russia have in common are
Trump Tower Istanbul and his desire for Trump Tower Moscow. He is, quite literally selling us out.
P.S. Nice try, Russkie, but it wasn't us who invaded and seized Crimea and western Ukraine. That was you. We may stick our
noses into world affairs more than we should, but we have not stolen any land or resources of any country we are in. Get right
down to it, if it wasn't for your nukes, we'd put you down like a rabid dog. Don't think we can? Your economy is the size of our
state of Georgia and it ain't even close to the top. Just another commie basket case.
FOX News contributor John Solomon revealed fired Ukrainian Ambassador Maria Yovanovich's
links to a radical Soros group. Yovanovich appeared before Congress on Friday, claiming that
she was unjustly fired just because she badmouthed the president, prevented Ukrainian officials
from coming to the US to expose Democrat corruption, and giving Ukrainian prosecutor a do not
prosecute list. Now, investigative reporter John Solomon reports on her link to a
Soros-supported group. Lutsenko told Solomon that in April 2016, Ukrainian prosecutors were
investigating an alleged anti-corruption group, AntAC, over $4.4 million that was illegally
diverted. AntAc was founded by the Obama administration and George Soros.
Trump's Little Surprise Is Making Liberals Cry! Got Yours Yet? Liberty Journalists x Ads by Revcontent Find Out More >
21,994
On Friday fired Ambassador Yovanovich testified behind closed doors in front of the
Pelosi-Schiff impeachment committee.
Yovanovich believes she was unjustly fired despite the fact that she was an Obama holdover,
was speaking out against President Trump and she was
colluding with the DNC and Hillary Campaign to undermine the US presidential election.
On Friday John Solomon told Lou Dobbs about the fired ambassador's links to a radical Soros
group operating in Ukraine.
On March 20th Solomon
published his interview with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko alleging
Yovanovitch gave him a "do not prosecute list," back in 2016.
It will be clear once the transcripts are released, that the crew
testifying for Adam Schiff are upset about the President fulfilling his
Constitutional responsibility to run foreign policy rather than letting
them run it, about his determination to get to the bottom of Ukraine's role
in intervening in the 2016 U.S. Election, and the ongoing coup against him,
which implicates many of these very same "witnesses." The President,
knowing that Ukraine tried to take him out by intervening in the 2016
election, refused to meet with the Poroshenko government. That government
jockeyed for favor by revealing its role in the 2016 illegalities and
documenting the Biden story for Rudy Guilani and others.
When new
President Zelensky was elected, President Trump used an alternate channel
to assess him, rather than the State Department and National Security
Council operatives who were either involved in the coup against him or
refused to stand against it. That appears to have included Ukraine envoy
Kurt Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
There is nothing unusual in this but it drove the unelected Mandarins,
including John Bolton, crazy, along with the considerable military
industrial complex grouping in the Congress who want permanent war with
Russia.
Here are the key players so far based on the applause provided by
Democrats and the Main Stream Media:
William B. Taylor, Jr.
Presented hearsay testimony, based on conversations with NSC John Bolton
protégé Tim Morrison, and others that somehow the President presented a
quid pro quo in his July 25th phone call with Zelensky, despite the fact
that the actual transcript of the call and repeated statements by President
Zelensky evidence no quid pro quo. Taylor's career has featured every U.S.
imperial disaster possible:
– "Economic development" coordinator for Eastern Europe, former Soviet
Union, resulting in the economic decimation of those countries and their
looting
– Coordinator for U.S. assistance of Afghanistan. Said the U.S. had the
right to stay forever until the country was secured to U.S. specifications
– Coordinator for Iraq Reconstruction. Program lost billions and left
the country destitute and mired in religious warfare.
– Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-2009 right after the Orange Revolution,
the nation's first color revolution delivered by the British and the State
Department.
– Under Obama, Special Coordinator for Mideast "transitions" in the wake
of the Arab Spring, the program which set all of Southwest Asia on fire and
birthed the present round of Isis terrorism.
– Serves on the U.S./Ukraine Business Council with David J. Kramer as a
senior advisor. Kramer leaked the dirty Christopher Steele dossier against
Donald Trump to Buzzfeed. The Council coordinates the "investment" of
various vulture and "turnaround" funds in Ukraine. According to Breitbart's
Aaron Klein, Taylor met with a member of Adam Schiff's staff, Thomas Eager,
in Ukraine, prior to his testimony.
Marie Yovanovitch
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from August 18, 2016, until she was recalled,
in May of 2019. She claimed she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump
attorney, Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainians who opposed her. But, she was at the
helm of the Embassy at the point when the Manafort black ledger smear
campaign was at full roar.
Way back in March, 2019, U.S. Embassy employees at the Ukrainian Embassy
were leaking that the Ambassador was telling Embassy employees and
Ukrainians not to pay any attention to President Donald Trump because he
was going to be impeached.
This was before a wave of articles featuring Ukraine's former prosecutor
Yuriy Lutsenko claiming that Yovanovitch had provided him with a list of
"do not prosecute" names, including those Ukrainians most involved in the
Ukrainian efforts to target and smear former Trump Campaign Advisor Paul
Manafort as a Russian agent.
Judicial Watch has just filed a FOIA request based on State Department
sources who claim that during her tenure in Ukraine, Yovanovitch ordered
the monitoring of various journalists who published negative stories about
her or who generally support President Trump.
Her resume evidences a trail of destruction. Dubbed the "Iron Lady" by
colleagues, she replaced the infamous Ambassador Geoffey Pyatt in Ukraine.
In 2002, after serving as one of the key State Department anti-Russian
diplomats, Yovanovitch played a central role in the Ukraine regime change
operation known as the "Orange Revolution." She promoted the scandal of
Ukraine selling 4 Kolchuga radar systems to Iraq in violation of the United
Nations sanctions. This led to the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma being replaced by Washington and London's choice, Viktor
Yushschenko..
She was Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic at the time the British-U.S.
Tulip Color Revolution occurred in that country, led by the State
Department and the British.
In 2008-2011 Yovanovitch was U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, where she was
heavily involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in neighboring Azerbaijan
(a separatist operation as part of a regime-change operation).
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman
A Ukrainian born Army veteran, Vindman joined the NSC in July of 2018,
under John Bolton, as the NSC's "Ukraine expert." He claimed that all of
his corrections to the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump call were not
accepted although he admitted that his corrections were minor and did not
change the call substantively. He testified that he discussed with
Ukrainian colleagues how to "handle Trump."
The key to who he is and why he is testifying is contained in his
opening statement:
"When I joined the NSC in the Spring of 2019, I became aware of
outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent
with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful for
U.S. government policy."
There you have it, the "interagency" dictates U.S. foreign policy, not
the President as specified in Article II of the Constitution. Vindman also
says he authored the Russia strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for
managing "competition" with Russia, an undoubtedly very bellicose document.
Amidst the media fanfare claiming that Vindman represents "the ultimate
immigrant hero" story, the Republicans finally leaked something substantive
about what happened behind closed doors. Asked to cite in the transcript of
the call where the President offered a quid pro quo, Vindman apparently
testified that the entire call evidenced this, since the President was in a
"position of power" over President Zelensky. If true, foreign policy is now
being managed on the same terms as the Me Too movement.
Right-wing media tries to smear former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
Despite grave Judicial Watch allegations about a "surveillance" campaign from right-wing figures,
the facts so far point to mere tracking of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign
UPDATE (10/24/19)
: It
turns out
that the list Marie Yovanovitch allegedly used to "spy" on conservatives was really a basic Facebook
search on CrowdTangle, a
mundane and widely-used
social media
tool that
tracks
public
social media activity.
Judicial Watch
described CrowdTangle as a "Soros-linked media tracking tool."
Representatives of right-wing group Judicial Watch have been claiming during appearances on
conservative media shows that former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "spying" on media figures
close to President Donald Trump by monitoring public statements they made on social media regarding
Ukraine.
Judicial Watch is alleging that Yovanovitch -- who recently
testified to House impeachment investigators
that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her
over baseless allegations -- was "basically running a war room" by monitoring public statements regarding
Ukraine
made by
figures in right-wing media like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, Trump personal lawyer Rudy
Giuliani, and Donald Trump, Jr. The list also includes former Obama ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.
Judicial Watch also claims that the searches were looking for the following keywords: "Biden,"
"Giuliani," "Soros," and "Yovanovitch."
That Yovanovich would monitor public statements made by public figures is unsurprising given her
recent testimony
claiming that Giuliani had been criticizing her in the months before her ousting,
and the people she allegedly monitored are connected to the smear campaign Giuliani was waging. He had
accused her of privately criticizing the president and trying to protect the interests of Biden and his
son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The smear included accusations that
Soros was funding a conspiracy to hurt Trump's presidency and elect Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Yovanovich said she was "incredulous" about her removal and that it was based on "unfounded and false
claims by people with clearly questionable motives" -- claims that have been
promoted publicly
by conservative media figures.
The Washington Post
reported that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible
for Ukraine, became concerned around October 2018 that Yovanovitch was the target of a "classic
disinformation operation."
NBC News
indicated that the State Department was concerned over the effort to oust Yovanovich,
reporting that the agency "attempted to ring alarm bells" regarding Giuliani's efforts to smear her:
The documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon's columns in The Hill,
attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part
of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary
Clinton win the 2016 election.
...
When State Department officials saw the disinformation campaign, they attempted to ring alarm bells
and strategized to correct the record, the documents show.
Yovanovitch, who has over 30 years of experience in foreign diplomacy, further testified that, as
The Washington Post
put it, "under Trump's leadership, U.S. foreign policy has been compromised by
self-interested actors who have badly demoralized and depleted America's diplomatic corps." The testimony
of
White House aide Fiona Hill
confirmed Yovanovitch's depiction of foreign policy under the Trump
administration.
Still, Judicial Watch is attempting to push the narrative that Yovanovitch nefariously
spied on Trump allies among right-wing media, appearing on the radio shows of Sebastian Gorka and Sean
Hannity and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs' prime-time show to spread the message. Some Fox News figures
responded with paranoia regarding their own conversations.
Judicial Watch
also shared
its report on Twitter, announcing that it is "investigating if prominent conservative figures/journalists
& persons [with ties] to @realDonaldTrump were unlawfully monitored by the State Dept in Ukraine at the
request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee."
Fox & Friends
hosted Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton, who repeated that his "sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy
Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases."
Co-host Steve Doocy invited Fitton to "go ahead and speculate for a second" about Yovanovitch's motives,
to which Fitton replied, "It looks an awful lot like an enemy's list to me." Doocy noted that Yovanovitch
is "keeping an eye on television, of all things," and he called it "particularly disturbing that, you
know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV."
As Bette Davis said in All About Eve , "Fasten your seatbelts -- it's going to be a bumpy night."
The ride started last night with Rep. Devin Nunes' appearance on Hannity , escalated with arrests of figures tied to Rudy
Giuliani, and will possibly come to a complete halt when former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch meets with three House committees
tomorrow -- assuming the State Department allows the testimony to take place at all.
Kicking this off, Kicking this off, Kicking this off,
Nunes went on Hannity last night to claim that Yavonovitch may have been spying on Americans -- including journalists.
Sean Hannity expresses his anger over what his own sources are telling him about surveillance of John Solomon among others, although
Nunes more cautiously advises patience:
"What I can tell you is that we know what Pete Sessions, congressman from Texas now retired, we know what he had to say. We
know that there are people within that were not only Ukrainians but also Americans that worked at the State Department who have
raised concerns about this ambassador, that's why she was ultimately removed," Nunes said.
"We also have concerns that possibly they were monitoring press from different journalists and others," he continued. "That
we don't know, but, you know, we have people who have given us this information and we're going to ask these questions to the
State Department and hopefully they'll get the answers before she comes in on Friday."
Hannity then said three sources have told him there "is evidence that shows government resources were used to monitor communications"
of a journalist, The Hill's John Solomon.
"Well, what I have heard, and I want to be clear. I think there is a difference. What I've heard is that there were strange
requests, irregular requests to monitor, not just one journalist, but multiple journalists," Nunes said. "Now perhaps that was
okay. Perhaps there was some reason for that, that it can be explained away. But that's what we know and that's what we are going
to be looking into."
Keep Pete Sessions in mind as our ride progresses to its next sharp turn. Earlier today, two of Rudy Giuliani's clients -- and
donors to a PAC funding Giuliani's investigation of the Bidens --
got arrested for criminal campaign finance violations . Among the allegations are that those violations intended to mask foreign
influence on US elections:
Two Soviet-born donors to a pro-Trump fundraising committee who helped Rudy Giuliani's efforts to investigate Democrat Joe
Biden were arrested late Wednesday on criminal charges of violating campaign finance rules, including funneling Russian money
into President Trump's campaign.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Florida businessmen, have been under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan,
and are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday, the people said. Both men were born in former Soviet
republics.
Mr. Giuliani, President Trump's private lawyer, identified the two men in May as his clients. Both men have donated to Republican
campaigns including Mr. Trump's, and in May 2018 gave $325,000 to the primary pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action, through
an LLC called Global Energy Producers, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The men were charged with four counts, including conspiracy, falsification of records and lying to the FEC about their political
donations,
according
to the indictment that outlines a conspiracy to funnel a Russian donor's money into U.S. elections.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the two have been instrumental in helping Giuliani make contacts in Ukraine. One of them
happened to be part of a meeting Giuliani had with the now-unemployed envoy Kurt Volker:
Since late 2018, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas have introduced Mr. Giuliani to several current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors
to discuss the Biden case.
Mr. Parnas in July accompanied Mr. Giuliani to a breakfast meeting with Kurt Volker, then the U.S. special representative for
Ukraine negotiations. "We had a long conversation about Ukraine," Mr. Volker wrote in his testimony to House committees last week.
During that breakfast, Mr. Giuliani mentioned the investigations he was pursuing into Mr. Biden and 2016 election interference.
The
indictment
released today has a very telling reference to a former US congressman who involved himself in the effort to oust Yovanovitch:
And now let's go back to the WSJ for some dot-connecting:
In May 2018, Pete Sessions, at the time a GOP congressman from Texas, sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking
for her removal, saying he had been told Ms. Yovanovitch was displaying a bias against the president in private conversations.
The indictment references a congressman, identifiable as Mr. Sessions, whose assistance Mr. Parnas sought in "causing the U.S.
government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine." The indictment says those efforts were conducted "at least
in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials." Mr. Sessions didn't respond to a request for comment.
Hoo boy . If nothing else, this certainly looks bad, which makes Nunes' citation of Session suspect on its face.
The Department of Justice is essentially accusing Sessions of being bought by foreign influence in going after Yovanovitch, and clearly
intends to press that case against Giuliani's associates on that basis.
Bear in mind that this is William Barr's DoJ, too. Barr got read into the case soon after taking over the Attorney General
job in February, and apparently found it convincing enough to proceed to indictment. The arrest also made it very convenient for
House Democrats to
issue subpoenas for testimony from the pair , although it likely complicates how cooperative they're willing to be. At the very
least, they'll be easy to find.
Giuliani responded by attacking the DoJ for its "extremely suspect" timing in unsealing the indictment and arresting his associates.
He promised Fox News' Catherine Herridge that he would shortly reveal how all of this is connected to his investigation into the
Bidens:
What about the "extremely suspect" timing? It turns out that the pair were
trying to leave
the country , which forced the DoJ to make the arrests now:
The two Giuliani-linked defendants, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington
on Wednesday and are scheduled to appear in court in Virginia at 2 p.m. ET Thursday.
Meanwhile, Yovanovitch continues to prepare for her own testimony, which is still
scheduled to take place tomorrow . The Washington Post reported late last night that she's "on board" for cooperating with the
committees, and perhaps now even more so after Nunes' allegations on Hannity last night. The State Department could still
bar her from discussing her work with Congress (she remains employed by State), but
ABC reports today that Mike Pompeo is already facing a rising level of discontent over Yovanovitch's treatment and Pompeo's lack
of a public defense for her:
Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled early from her post this spring, is scheduled for a deposition Friday with three committees
in the House of Representatives, but it is unclear whether she will be allowed to show up after the U.S. ambassador to the European
Union was blocked by the Trump administration from testifying on Tuesday.
Either way, the manner in which Yovanovitch has been treated by Trump and the silence from Pompeo has already rankled many
rank and file at the State Department, according to half a dozen current and former officials, who are also upset by the administration's
use of career diplomats in the president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
So where does this ride come to a stop? How much of this is true -- all of it, none of it, or only some of it? Trump loyalists
will surely consider all of this as more evidence of a Deep State plot that now involves both the State and Justice Departments.
Trump haters will see this as another case of foreign influence on the administration and a plot to smear Trump's opponents, both
electoral and otherwise. The rest of America might just be hoping that the [expletive deleted] ride would come to an end, period
.
At this point, the mess is too complicated to suss out which conclusion reflects the truth. What does appear to true is
that we're not going to know for sure what's true for a long, long time -- and it might turn out, ironically, that the DoJ
could end up as the most credible player in Ukraine-Gate.
A parade of Washington's unelected diplomatic elite has been appearing before the House
Intelligence Committee in a tiny room in the House basement, a SCIF (sensitive compartmented
information facility), walled off from the world by a blanket of electronic security to enforce
absolute, total secrecy. There, in a proceeding reminding most of the British Star Chamber,
they are making claims against a man they hate, a man whom the voters elected in 2016 to throw
them all out of any power whatsoever over the nation -- the President of the United
States. Here is how America voted.
Here is a map of US counties, colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic
majorities respectively. Source: personal.umich.edu
They are claiming that President Trump withheld necessary military aid for Ukraine in
exchange for a promise by the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his cocaine-addled son,
Hunter. This is the so-called "impeachment inquiry" which follows two previous impeachment
campaigns in sequence, launched by the Democrats and the Anglo-American defense and
intelligence establishment on the day Donald Trump won the election.
In this brief we will show you that Donald Trump should have withheld military aid from the
Ukrainians, but for a reason different than that stated. And, we will demonstrate that Joe
Biden should be investigated, for supervising a coup, led by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which has
collapsed that country. Thousands have been killed or fled the country. Many of the foreign
policy mandarins now testifying against Trump were Biden's managers of that horrific crime, and
other similar crimes, which have created America's "forever" wars.
Joe Biden otherwise
played a key role as Obama's Vice President in the 2016-2017 illegalities against candidate
and President-elect Donald Trump, actively joining a small group of "principals" (John Brennan,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Jim Comey) discussing and implementing the
intelligence feed for a propaganda campaign intended to defeat Trump by smearing him as a
Russian agent. These conversations included Susan Rice, Avril Haines, and Lisa Monaco from the
White House side, in addition to Joe Biden. Biden also played a significant role in the
attempted coverup of the White House's direct role in the 2016 foreign interference
operation against Donald Trump.
After the string of illegalities against Trump, which continued through his firing of FBI
Director James Comey, and after the brutal
Robert Mueller inquisition , which destroyed many lives but came up empty as to any crimes
by the President, we have now entered phase three of the coup against the President. As
Congressman Al Green (D-TX) and even Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have admitted: impeachment now
is necessary because, without it, Trump will win a second term. The same sentiment was
pronounced by the British House of Lords in their 2018 "UK Foreign
Policy in a Shifting World Order," in an order to their American satrapy: a second Trump
term must not happen.
Everyone who has appeared before the House Intelligence Committee so far, is up to their
ears in U.S./British regime-change operations, particularly the one conducted by the Obama
Administration in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, where Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland engineered regime
change on Russia's border, using Neo-Nazis as muscle, and creating a post-coup vassal-state
which included the very same Neo-Nazis as government officials. Joe Biden, who served as the
Obama Administration's "point man" on Ukraine, and Biden's State Department, National Endowment
for Democracy, and Atlantic Council buddies misnamed their atrocity, the "Revolution of
Dignity." Victoria Nuland, the case officer with Joe Biden for the coup, says the United States
spent $5 billion dollars in creating this fiasco. Her figures do not include substantial funds
delivered by the British government and NATO, along with George Soros and other privateers.
Like other regime-change wars, most prominently Iraq, this one installed a government of
colonial administrators, and resulted in a perfectly predictable, violent insurgency from those
sections of Ukraine that would never agree to an occupation government, particularly after
being attacked by the coup's "Right Sector" neo-Nazis. In Ukraine, this insurgency involved the
Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass, where, after the coup, the regions
of Donetsk and Lugansk declared themselves autonomous Republics. There is plenty of evidence
that the insurgency was provoked to facilitate a full-scale ethnic cleansing of this asset-rich
area which formerly housed that nation's manufacturing capacity and skilled
workforce.
March in Kiev on anniversary of the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (depicted
on flag), January 2015, Photo: All-Ukrainian Union
The conflict in the Donbass has killed over 13,000 people to date. And the coup resulted in
the further disintegration of Ukraine into Europe's poorest country. The operation replaced one
set of corrupt oligarchs who stole the country's riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but were considered "soft" on Russia, with a different set of oligarchs who have voiced a
desire to go to war with Russia, while continuing the stealing.
Biden, Ukraine, and
Burisma
This is the context for the real Joe Biden corruption story in Ukraine and his son's
estimated $3 million dollar haul from one of the largest and most corrupt Ukrainian gas and oil
companies: Burisma . This is a story about the obsession of Joe Biden and others who went
out to cripple Russia's economy by shutting down the gas transit lines that pass from Russia,
through Ukraine, to Europe, while supplying Ukraine through Western oil companies shepherded
into the country by Biden, along with a scheme for fracking in the war-torn Donbass. They
pursued this while overtly threatening Russia with nuclear war, facilitated by their new vassal
state, Ukraine, on Russia's border -- placing the entire world in jeopardy by their madness. To
accomplish his gas gambit, Biden had to capture Burisma.
Then Vice President Joe Biden with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Secretary of
State John Kerry, Ambassador Victoria Nuland, and others in a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko on February 7, 2015.
Many of the British and American intelligence operatives who accomplished the Ukraine
"regime change" in 2014, turned their attention, in 2016, to destroying the political candidacy
of Donald Trump, smearing him as a Manchurian candidate because he publicly stated a desire for
better relations with Russia.
When Rudy Giuliani started to investigate Kiev's role in the illegal 2016 attempt to defeat
Donald Trump, he touched a "third rail" of British and American intelligence, one that goes all
the way back to British and American adoption and support of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN-B) led by Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was an MI-6 agent, Lebed
became CIA. Earlier, during World War II, in collaboration with the Nazis, they slaughtered
thousands of Poles and Jews -- all in the name of defeating Russia. The Right Sector groups
used by Joe Biden for the coup and subsequently installed in the government, idolize Stepan
Bandera.
Now that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham have, as anticipated,
undertaken a full criminal investigation of the U.S., British and other intelligence figures
who led the 2016-2017 effort to defeat Donald Trump and subvert his presidency, the Ukrainian
aspect of this operation has become a very, very hot potato.
The appearance of the bogus Ukraine-aid "whistleblower" -- himself, we now know, a CIA
agent, expert in Ukraine, who previously worked with Joe Biden in the Obama White House --
represents an effort to block this story from serious investigation at all costs. It also aims
to delegitimize the entire Barr/Durham criminal investigation, as well as the imminent report
of the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Both DOJ investigations center
on illegalities in the first stage of the coup against Trump, prior to Mueller's appointment as
Special Counsel. And, most important, the bogus impeachment "inquiry" is yet another
full-spectrum information-warfare operation, using the media, fed by cascading, 24/7 bogus
headlines and leaks from the intelligence community and the Democrats in Congress, to tank the
President's standing with the American people and either impeach him or defeat him in
2020.
The Present Charade
We now know that the bogus whistleblower worked, covertly, with Congressman Adam Schiff's
staff to launder leaks about the President's July 25th phone call with incoming Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, into a new bogus narrative about the President. This
whistleblower is represented by a law firm that has actively sought whistleblowers from the
intelligence agencies against the President, posting leaflets and billboard ads outside the
agencies and offering to cover any and all expenses.
Paul Sperry, in an October 30th
article at Real Clear Investigations , states that everyone in Washington and the national
news media "knows" that the bogus whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. If true, it only highlights
the scandal embodied in the sham impeachment proceedings being run by the Democrats, it is the
equivalent of a hand grenade. Ciaramella worked in the Obama White House with Susan Rice, John
Brennan and Joe Biden on Ukraine. He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who ran Ukraine's
illegal 2016 election interference in the United States on behalf of Hillary Clinton. According
to a former NSC official, he got caught leaking to the media as an Obama holdover at the NSC
under Trump, where he chaired the Ukraine desk. His leaks framed the totally bogus narrative
that Putin caused the firing of James Comey by Trump. Rather than being fired,
Ciaramella returned to the CIA and his close friends, according to Sperry's story, joined Adam
Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, a most convenient setup.
The bogus whistleblower was also assisted by a new Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, Michael Atkinson, who dubbed this bogus complaint "credible" and "urgent." Atkinson
migrated from the leadership of the National Security Division of the Justice Department -- a
central control point in Phases 1 and 2 of the coup -- to the IG post, and promptly rewrote the
rules so that whistleblower complaints could be based on total hearsay and gossip, rather than
first-hand knowledge. In Atkinson's January 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-VA) charged him with a mission of protecting
whistleblowers first and foremost. This was most strange coming from a committee that has
repeatedly acquiesced in the destruction of actual whistleblowers such as Tom Drake, Bill
Binney, Jeff Sterling, and Julian Assange. It suggests that a new "insurance policy" was being
worked on already by the higher echelons of the intelligence community and the most corrupted
committee in the Senate.
Surprise: the Transcript
To the surprise of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the coup's strategists, the President
released the actual transcript of his July 25th phone conversation with President Zelensky,
which, in any reasonable culture, should have ended the entire affair. The bogus
whistleblower's gossip was proven demonstrably false by the transcript. Washington, D.C. is
not, presently, such a culture.
In the call, President Trump congratulated Zelensky on his victory in the parliamentary
elections, and Zelensky promptly announced that he would be reforming his government to clean
up its legendary and horrific corruption. The President and Zelensky discussed the fact that
the United States is shouldering the burden of support for Ukraine, while Germany and other
European countries, which have the most immediate strategic interest, are not contributing
enough.
In the portion of the call the Democrats are trying to make an impeachable crime, President
Trump said he was concerned about Ukraine's intervention into the 2016 U.S. election on behalf
of Hillary Clinton and expressed concern that Zelensky is surrounded by some of the same people
who conducted those activities. Trump asked whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
computer server examined by CrowdStrike is in the possession of a Ukrainian oligarch. He asks
Zelensky to work with Attorney General Barr, who is conducting the investigation into the 2016
presidential election illegalities. He characterizes this request to investigate possible
Ukrainian illegalities in the 2016 election, and to speak with Attorney General Barr, as doing
him (Trump) a "favor."
The "favor," it is clear, had nothing to do with the 2020 elections or asking Ukraine to
"attack" Democrats and Joe Biden, as repeatedly mischaracterized by Democrats and the bogus
whistleblower. Instead, it had to do with investigating the ongoing coup in the United
States which threatens this nation's very existence .
It is Zelensky who brings up Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, who has been conducting
his own investigation of Ukraine's interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton since January of
2019. The President then says that he had heard that a very good prosecutor in Ukraine was shut
down by some very bad people, and that the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch, was bad news, as were the people she was dealing with. The President then relates
that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecution of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company
where Hunter Biden sat on the Board. He says that whatever Zelensky can tell Attorney General
Barr about this would be great. Zelensky responds that Marie Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador
as she admired Petro Poroshenko, the previous President, and refused to accept Zelensky's
election.
That's it. There was absolutely nothing illegal or wrong here, despite the hair-on-fire
headlines fulminated daily by the news media and Adam Schiff -- the same "walls closing in"
nonsense that occurred daily during Russiagate. There is no reference to, "if you do this, I'll
do that." In fact, the Ukrainians were not even aware that the lethal military aid they were
expecting had been placed on temporary hold.
Unfortunately, the President, after the call, approved the lethal military aid to Ukraine
which Congress' war-mongers had ordered up in their continuing destructive madness about
"Russia, Russia, Russia." The aid was issued without any requirement whatsoever that Ukraine
produce anything to meet President Trump's concerns about 2016 election interference or the
corruption surrounding Burisma and/or Joe Biden. The aid was issued without any real guarantees
in place to ensure that lethal weaponry would not be put in the hands of the various Neo-Nazis
integrated into Ukraine's National Guard and militias, and who are now arrayed against
President Zelensky himself, charging that his effort to settle the war in the Donbass is a
sell-out to Russia.
Now if the President and his supporters choose to tell the real and whole truth to the
American people about what the Ukraine issue is really all about, the impeachers, so desperate
to block this from coming to light, will have hoisted themselves on their own petard in true
Shakespearian fashion, in the best boomerang imaginable. That story, the real story about Joe
Biden, Ukraine corruption, and the Ukrainian role in the effort to fix the 2016 election for
Hillary Clinton, is what we will set forth, in summary fashion, in what follows.
House Republicans on Thursday said that testimony from the State Department's former envoy to Ukraine, sought by
House Democrats with regards to their impeachment inquiry, won't advance the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.
Emerging from the day-long deposition, New York Republican
Lee Zeldin
said that former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker's private Thursday testimony, "blows a hole in the
argument" presented by Democrats that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for a quid pro quo.
Volker on Thursday spent hours testifying with congressional investigators who are seeking to discover if he
played any role in Trump's efforts to obtain from Ukrainian officials information on Hunter Biden, the son of 2020
presidential hopeful
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
House Intelligence Chairman
Adam B. Schiff
briefly addressed reporters during the testimony, charging that Trump encouraging a foreign nation
to investigate his political rival was a "fundamental breach of the president's oath of office."
"It endangers our elections, it endangers our national security, it ought to be condemned by every member of this
body, Democrats and Republicans alike," Schiff said.
While Volker testified, Ohio Republican
Michael R. Turner
, an Intelligence Committee member, released a statement saying he does "not believe that
Volker's testimony advanced Schiff's impeachment agenda."
Zeldin urged the relevant congressional committees to make public a transcript of Volker's deposition, along with
text messages Volker sent to Ukrainian officials, which have become a source of intrigue in the fledgling impeachment
push.
About two-and-a-half hours into Volker's deposition,
Jim Jordan
, an Ohio Republican and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, emerged and told reporters that
Schiff wanted to limit certain members from questioning Volker and that the California Democrat had barred State
Department lawyers from participating in the closed briefing.
Want insight more often?
Get Roll Call in your inbox
"If this is how Mr. Schiff is going to conduct these types of interviews in the future," Jordan said, "that's a
concern."
Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
has drawn the ire of congressional Democrats this week for rejecting a subpoena and rebuffing
congressional requests to question five current and former State Department officials to testify in the impeachment
inquiry.
Trump: House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff should "resign from office"
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack
Press shift question mark to access a list of
keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Play/Pause
SPACE
Increase Volume
↑
Decrease Volume
↓
Seek Forward
→
Seek Backward
←
Captions On/Off
c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen
f
Mute/Unmute
m
Seek %
0-9
Off
Automated Captions - en-US
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
Copied
Live
00:00
02:34
02:34
Jordan praised Volker, calling him "impressive." Turner called Volker "an incredible diplomat," in his statement.
Volker resigned from his position as special envoy less than a week ago after his name appeared in a whistleblower
complaint alleging that Volker was coordinating with Ukrainian officials on how to handle requests from Trump's
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. That whistleblower report is central in justifying House Democrats' impeachment
inquiry.
Turner said he doesn't believe Volker would have done anything untoward during his State Department service.
"It is my strong belief that Volker would not have been involved in nor permitted anything inappropriate, let
alone illegal, in his service to our country," Turner said. "Today he continued his legacy of integrity under
questioning from Schiff's staff."
"... The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices independent of what the president thinks or believes. ..."
"... If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected officials why should we bother with holding elections? ..."
"... The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies? ..."
"... I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power. ..."
"... I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the "government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community". ..."
"... Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it. Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters. ..."
"... Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street. ..."
"... Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity any nation who stands in our way.. ..."
"... Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable! ..."
"... Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to them. ..."
"... When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life. ..."
"... A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a ridiculous notion. ..."
"... If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I can see that now. ..."
"... Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times. ..."
"... American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political parties. ..."
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliance against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Vindman is a Jew born in Ukraine and brought up in the Little Odessa
neighborhood of Brooklyn. I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a
peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major
corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street.
Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity
any
nation who stands in our way..
Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany
where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's
classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a
group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin
nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group
of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable!
Last night I watched a report by Catherine Herrhidge of Fox state that in Vindman's
statement he admits to sharing POTUS' classified transcripts and other readouts to a small
group of others outside the NSC. In essence he admitted to leaking classified information.
When Rep Jim Jordan started to drill down into that line of questioning, Schiff cut him
off.
This entire shitshow honestly tells any w/an open mind that the D's and their leadership
are desperate. Imagine a committee chairman not allowing members to question a witness about
who he shared the President's classified information with. That's not the rascally Dem Party
I know. It's painfully obvious these radicals will walk on hot coals, climb the Himalayans
and swim across the Atlantic to pin anything and I mean anything on Trump. They do not care
about downstream impacts, catastrophic as they may turn out to be.
Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be
shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by
fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to
them.
When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately
after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By
cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the
very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be
depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life.
A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given
his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be
given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a
ridiculous notion.
If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already
born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was
disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I
can see that now.
And nothing good ever comes from Ukraine. It's a psyched country, or would-be country, just
there to give the world trouble.
Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its
lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before
they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too
much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd
be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he
somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times.
Looks like
Real Clear Investigations is suggesting a certain Eric Ciaramella is the "whistleblower",
which might upset Schiff since the Democrats want he name and political attachments kept a
secret. Anyway the article provides some more pieces for the Russiagate/Ukrainegate jigsaw
puzzle.
American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask
when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am
thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political
parties.
Okay, so just what is the Outlaw US Empire's Foreign/Imperial Policy? I'm glad I asked!
The overarching #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire is to establish Full Spectrum
Domination over the planet and its people as enunciated publicly in 1996 policy paper
Joint
Vision 2010 which was modified and republished as Joint Vision 2020 , both of
which are essentially military policies, not National Defense as they're espousing 100%
offensive doctrines. In tandem is the much older economic policy plot known as the Washington
Consensus, which I've referenced many times and is best explained by Dr. Hudson's book
Super
Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire , and began at the end of WW2
but was greatly expanded/escalated in 1978.
Now it's obvious that Trump's trying to implement his own policies since he's getting so
much resistance. On the previous thread having this topic, I noted that Pepe Escobar had
written several pieces citing members of the Current Oligarchy who are Trump supporters who
provided him with info as to the likely directions of Trump's policies if he became POTUS. In
response to a request by Evelyn, I went and looked for those old items and found several.
This one IMO is worthy
of close scrutiny. Pepe opens:
"And for all the 24/7 scandal time of non-stop groping and kissing and lewd locker room
misbehaving, Trump seems to be ready to limp toward the finish line just as he began; an
all-out populist/nativist/nationalist fighting open borders (a Clinton mantra, as revealed by
the latest WikiLeaks Podesta email dump); 'free' trade; neoliberal globalization; and regime
change/bomb them into democracy/'humanitarian' imperialism."
Yes, there's more, but the above's more than enough to show that Trump's 100% against the
two major policies of the Outlaw US Empire--and--he's actually done what the above suggests
he might do. I remember reading that just a little more than 3 years ago and thought Pepe was
fed a line of bull from his sources--he wasn't.
S.O. 2
"> Will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its
dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Take a look at that statement and realise how diseased it is."
I totally agree. It is diseased on multiple levels. "lock in"? he says? What if Ukrainians
change their minds??? Say, by electing a Russia-leaning politico?
Oh, right, that's what happened back in 2014. Hence, the Maidan "lock-in." to me this "lock
in" comment is an open confession of ongoing meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs.
That is quite apart from the sick joke that is reference to "a dream of vibrant democracy
and economic development" brought about by the "West-leaning trajectory."
From what I have heard, Ukraine is an unmitigated disaster since "the West" decided to
determine and "lock in" its political trajectory. Not to mention thousands dead in the
Donbass and Lukansk.
"Donald Trump's red wave on Election Day was an unprecedented body blow against
neoliberalism. The stupid early-1990s prediction about the 'end of history' turned into a
– possible – shock of the new....
"Once again. A body blow, not a death blow. Like the cast of The Walking Dead, the
zombie neoliberal elite simply won't quit. For the Powers That Be/Deep State/Wall Street
axis, there's only one game in town, and that is to win, at all costs . Failing that, to
knock over the whole chessboard, as in hot war...
"The angry, white, blue collar Western uprising is the ultimate backlash against
neoliberalism – an instinctive reaction against the rigged economic casino capitalism
game and its subservient political arms. That's at the core of Trump winning non-college
white voters in Wisconsin by 28 points. Blaming 'whitelash', racism, WikiLeaks or Russia is
no more than childish diversionary tactics." [My Emphasis]
No, they didn't quit but immediately put their very improvised "insurance policy" into
play based on the lies and contrivances concocted during the campaign and put into play by
Obama in the most unprecedented fashion ever as a sitting POTUS had never before sought to
undermine/sabotage the incoming POTUS in the manner being devised--essentially in my book,
Obama committed treason: again .
In his written testimony (from the Stars and Stripes account in Don Bacon's link at 146 in
the previous 'Deep State' thread) Lt. Colonel Vindman wrote:"...I am a patriot, and it is my
sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics."
Thanks so much b, for elaborating on that first part - "...sacred duty and honor to
advance.."
It does seem the Constitutional duties and limitations got lost in the shuffle back when
George Bush (I think it was) joked the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper.' Still, even
he too thought foreign policy was his to dictate. I am remembering the 'first strike'
doctrine that he propounded and Al Gore gave a speech decrying back in the day.
That "advance" stuck in my craw - thanks for shining the light.
@29 Ghost Ship
fascinating... didn't realize how much the Trump Admin's seemingly simple
retaliation-for-Russiagate investigation of Biden really struck a nerve among the Obama era
CIA/NSC Ukraine team. Wonder what they know.
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats' controversial
impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George
Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman's council.
Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led
an election observer delegation to Ukraine's April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.
The delegation's mission, according to NDI
literature
, was to "accurately and impartially assess various aspects of the election process, and to offer
recommendations to support peaceful, credible elections and public confidence in the process."
Taylor led the team along with former Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Audrey Glover and former Minister for European Union
Affairs Birgitta Ohlsson.
Hunter Biden at the time served on NDI's ten person Chairman's Council, which
describes itself
as
bringing together "leaders from corporate, philanthropic, and academia sectors to provide expertise, counsel and
resources to help the Institute meet these evolving challenges."
Biden was engaged in Ukraine in his role as a board member for Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the
center of allegations regarding Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration while his
son was being paid by Burisma.
NDI did not immediately respond to a Breitbart News inquiry about when Hunter Biden was removed from the
organization's chairman's council. The WayBack Internet archive
shows
Biden was
listed on NDI's website in that position until at least August 2019, encompassing the period when Taylor led the
organization's delegation.
Earlier this month, an attorney for Biden
said
the former vice president's son had stepped down from the Burisma board and that he planned to step down
from the board of BHR, a Chinese company seeking to invest Chinese funds outside China.
The NDI is not Taylor's only seemingly conspicuous link. Last week, Breitbart News
reported
that Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, writing Ukraine
policy pieces with the organization's director and analysis articles published by the Council. The Atlantic
Council is
funded
by
and works in partnership with Burisma.
In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a
senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has
co-hosted
events
with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted
jointly
by
the Atlantic Council and Burisma. USUBC events have been financially sponsored by Burisma.
Another senior
adviser
to
the USUBC is David J. Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain. Kramer played a central role in
disseminating the anti-Trump dossier to the news media and Obama administration.
Taylor participated in events and initiatives organized by Kramer.
The links may be particularly instructive after Breitbart News
reported
that
itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council for ten Congressional
aides reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff's House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting
during the trip with Taylor. The pre-planned trip took place after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his
August 12 complaint and
reportedly
after
a Schiff aide was contacted by the so-called whistleblower.
Common funding themes
Meanwhile, NDI, where Taylor led the election observation delegation,
lists
partners and sponsors who "provide much-needed resources," including Soros's Open Society Foundation, Google Inc.,
the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S.
Department of State.
Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros's Open Society Foundations, Google, and
the U.S. State Department. Another Atlantic Council funder is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.,
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also
finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in
the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference
from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower's document and released by the Google
and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public
precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's own claims, as Breitbart News
documented
.
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr.
Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff
Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the "cases" mentioned in that
call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request
for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials told me" – it contains a footnote
referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates
of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser,
Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does
so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko "also stated that he wished to communicate directly
with Attorney General Barr on these matters."
Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a
Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I
do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by
OCCRP, referenced above."
The OCCRP
report
repeatedly
referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and
BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published
the
full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. The
dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the
Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces
on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political
rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference
BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.
Taylor, Atlantic Council, Kramer
Multiple U.S. media outlets last week
obtained
Taylor's
full opening statement to the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.
In the leaked pre-written full opening statement, Taylor alluded to work he said he did for a "small Ukrainian
non- governmental organization" but he omitted the name of the organization.
"In the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member
of a small Ukrainian non- governmental organization supporting good governance and reform," he said.
The name of the organization is the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), where Taylor served for nine years as
senior advisor. The USUBC has co-hosted or participated in scores of events with the Atlantic Council. Taylor has
also authored numerous analysis pieces published by the Atlantic Council itself and has co-authored opeds written
together with the Atlantic Council's director.
Burisma is a key financial backer of the Atlantic Council. In 2017, Burisma and the Atlantic Council
signed
a
cooperative agreement to develop transatlantic programs with Burisma's financial support reportedly to focus "on
European and international energy security." Burisma specifically finances the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Besides funding the Atlantic Council, Burisma also routinely partners with the think tank. Only four months ago,
the company
co-hosted
the
Atlantic Council's second Annual Kharkiv Security Conference. Burisma
advertises
that
it committed itself to "15 key principles of rule of law and economic policy in Ukraine developed by the Atlantic
Council."
In March, three months before he became Trump's ambassador to Ukraine, the Atlantic Council
featured
an
oped co-authored by Taylor in which the diplomat argued Ukraine "has further to travel toward its self-proclaimed
European goal" of reformation.
In 2017, Taylor wrote a
piece
for
the Atlantic Council about a Ukrainian parliament vote on health care reform.
Last year, he
participated
in
an online Atlantic Council Q & A on the Crimea.
In November 2011, the Atlantic Council
hosted
Taylor
as the featured speaker at a discussion event when he was appointed that year as Special Coordinator for Middle East
Transitions at the State Department.
In March 2014, Taylor co-authored an analysis piece at Foreign Policy
magazine
written
together with John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who serves as director of the Eurasia Center for
the Atlantic council – the same Eurasia Center that is specifically funded by Burisma.
That same year, Taylor also co-authored a
New York Times
op-ed
with
the Atlantic Council's Herbst on Ukraine. The duo co-authored another
Times
op-ed
one
year later on the future of Ukraine. The op-ed was
reprinted
on
the USUBC's website.
The USUBC, where Taylor was a senior adviser for nine years along with Kramer, has
hosted
Herbst
for briefings and other events.
Kramer of the USUBC, infamous for his role in disseminating the anti-Trump dossier, also held a November 2011
event
at
the Atlantic Council's D.C. offices for a group that he heads called Freedom House. Taylor was one of six featured
speakers at Kramer's event.
The Atlantic Council published what it deemed a
24-point
plan
for ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In conjunction with the plan, Kramer, in his role as
director of Freedom House, organized a letter by American and European experts and former officials urging Russia to
end its conflict with Ukraine. Signatories of the letter,
published
on
the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council's website, include Taylor, Kramer and the Atlantic Council's Herbst.
As late as this past March, Taylor was
listed
as
one of nine members of the Friends of Ukraine Network Economic Security Task Force. Another member is Kramer.
When he deployed to Ukraine as Trump's ambassador in June, the USUBC
authored
a
piece in the Kyiv Post welcoming him.
In the USUBC
piece
welcoming
Taylor to Ukraine, Kramer himself commented about Taylor's ambassador position. "He's a great choice for now," Kramer
gushed.
The USUBC's piece noted that the "USUBC has worked closely with Ambassador Taylor for many years," touting his
role as the business group's senior adviser.
On June 26, just nine days after arriving in Ukraine as ambassador, the USUBC already
hosted
Taylor
for a roundtable discussion about his new position.
Vadym Pozharskyi, adviser to the board of directors at Burisma Holdings, was also previously
hosted
as
a USUBC featured speaker.
Geysha Gonzalez is the sponsoring Atlantic Council officer listed on the Congressional disclosure form for the
Schiff staffer's trip to Ukraine in August. She is deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Gonzalez is also one of eleven members of the rapid response
team
for
the Ukrainian Election Task Force, which says it is working to expose "foreign interference in Ukraine's democracy."
Another
member
of
the team is Kramer.
Kramer revealed in testimony that he held a meeting about the anti-Trump dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed
News, who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer's permission when he left the room to
go to the bathroom. That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.
BuzzFeed infamously
published
the
Christopher Steele dossier on January 10, 2017, setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.
The Washington Post
reported
last
February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it.
In a deposition taken on December 13, 2017, and
posted
online
earlier this year, Kramer revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about
whether the anti-Trump dossier was being taken seriously.
In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council
official Celeste Wallander.
In the deposition, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier
with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry's State Department.
Taylor testimony and Burisma
In his testimony to the Democrats secretive impeachment inquiry, Taylor said that he "understood" from U.S.
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations." Taylor was referring to the announcement of
an investigation that included Burisma, as well as alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Taylor's testimony was
characterized
by
CNN as "explosive" and was similarly hyped by other news media outlets despite it not being unusual for the U.S. to
condition aspects of relations on participation in ongoing American investigations involving the foreign country in
question.
Still, Taylor conceded that there was no quid pro quo.
"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although
this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.'
I understood 'stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor
testified.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau
chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk
radio program, "
Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio
." Follow him on
Twitter
@AaronKleinShow.
Follow him on
Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
The State Department is a neoliberal Trojan horse in the USA government, with strong
globalist ethos. They will sabotage any change of foreign policy. and they intend to kick the
neoliberal can down the road as long as possible. They are the same type of neoliberals as Joe
Biden and Hillary Clinton. Probably less corrupt them those two, but still.
They are imperial soldiers par excellence; these whole life concentrated on serving the
imperial interests, and strive for the strengthening and expansion of neoliberal empire via
opening new markets for the expansions of US based multinationals, staging wars and color
revolutions to overthrows the governments which resists Washington Consensus, etc.
They probably can't be reformed, only fired, or forced into retirement. 72 years old neocon
stooge Taylor is just the tip of the iceberg.
From Wikipedia: He directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair . Following that
assignment, he went to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special
Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO From 1992 until 2002 Taylor served with the rank of
ambassador coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union , followed by an assignment in
Kabul coordinating U.S. and
international assistance to Afghanistan . In 2004 he was transferred to
Baghdad as Director of the
Iraq Reconstruction Management Office
Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States ambassador to
Ukraine while he was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and
Stabilization at the Department of State. [10] He was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was
sworn in on June 5, 2006. At the time Taylor assumed responsibilities at the embassy it was, with
over 650 employees from nine U.S. government departments and agencies, the fifth-largest
bilateral mission in Europe
Notable quotes:
"... As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry Democrats and Republicans alike. ..."
"... One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term, coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment, mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on Trump. ..."
"... Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine as a white knight. ..."
"... Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions. Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point. ..."
"... ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is now in the open? ..."
"... Vice President Mike Pence told Laura Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress." ..."
As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a
self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated
unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert,
the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry
Democrats and Republicans alike.
President Donald Trump campaigned and was elected on a platform of improved relations with
Russia. Yet, three years after his election, no real improvement has materialized and, if
anything, they have deteriorated. Why?
One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year
deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been
given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term,
coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment,
mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American
influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider
or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then
continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. Now Trump is
taking a wrecking ball to
this world order. But a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has
largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil,
or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that
should worry Democrats and Republicans alike.
Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes
positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can
be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security
adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald
Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make
all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on
Trump.
Enter William B. Taylor, Jr. Taylor has been the U.S. Chargé d 'Affaires Ukraine
since June of this year (having previously held the position of ambassador 2006–2009),
and yesterday he testified behind-closed-doors as part of the House impeachment inquiry into
Trump. Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the
Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from
Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered
an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and
concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine
as a white knight.
In his opening statement, Taylor emphasized that Ukraine is a strategic partner of the
United States that is "important for the security of our country as well as Europe," as well as
a country that is "under armed attack from Russia." Well, yes. But this sweeping description
occludes more than it reveals. Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale
that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too
many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an
official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though
Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever
been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions.
Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying
to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses
before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point.
Will anything change n ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is
now in the open? On Tuesday night, Vice President Mike Pence told Laura
Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President
Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up
in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going
to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for
improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a
moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to
emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress."
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
There was always an element of this in US foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt took the
opportunity of the Navy Sec being out for the weekend to send orders for the Asiatic
Fleet to move to position to attack the Philippines. The returning Sec was appalled, but
it was too late. For that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming President in due
time.
Forty years later, the US oil embargo on Japan happened the same way. The boss away
for the weekend, the deputy ordered it, and then left his bosses the options of
supporting it or appearing weak and appearing to make a concession by withdrawing it. For
that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming Sec of State in due time.
The pattern is not new. Doing it domestically is new. Doing it to remove a President
is new. Doing it to reverse a US election is new, though reversing foreign elections that
way by the same people was routine.
If we are to fix this, we need to face that it is a problem very deeply embedded. It
is not new, and does not have recent nor shallow roots.
"What goes unmentioned is that many of the dead are Eastern Ukrainians with deep
language and cultural connections to Russia, who acted upon secessionist impulses only
after the emergence of the new regime in Kiev."
This is true. Putin/Lavrov team gets a lot criticism for that in Russia. Maybe, of all
those Kalibrs going to Raqqa, Syria, just a few could make a detour to Lvov, Ukraine, for
demonstration purposes? While I greatly respect the diplomatic acumen of the Russian
leadership, i think support for pro-Russia East Ukrainians has been insufficient. More
could and should have been done. Donbass people were allowed to receive Russian passports
recently, so hopefully this will change things for the better, and more Russian support
will arrive, but we will see. West won't like a more pro-active Russian approach, but
since Russia-West relations won't improve in a foreseeable future, Russia can safely
discard Western opinion and agree to disagree on this particular matter.
According to Deng Xiaoping's maxim, we should "seek truth from facts," and after three
years Trump recognizes the fact that it is in U.S. national interest to avoid great power
conflict either with China or Russia. If we were to be honest and "seek truth from facts"
judging Putin with fairness by his action, we would see that Putin's intellect and
character have benefitted the international community at large in every regions across
the globe. Sadly, the American mandarin class is like Mao's Chinese Gang of Four who
insisted on continuing with outdated Cold War political ideology. Americans would never
vote for any chaos president, and Trump realizes that in time for 2020.
Russia has its own fair share of neo-naztis, so what?
Ukrainian neo-nazis (Azov etc.) get paided and armed by the Ukrainian state.
On Wednesday, New York Rep. Max Rose, who chairs the
counterterrorism subcommittee, submitted a letter to the State
Department, co-signed by 39 members of Congress . It urged the department
to designate Azov Battalion (a far-right paramilitary regiment in
Ukraine), National Action (a neo-Nazi group based in the U.K.), and
Nordic Resistance Movement (a neo-Nazi network from Scandinavia) as
terrorist organizations .
The reason they think Azov is neo-nasti organization is because the suspect in
Christchurch mosque got military
training in Ukraine.
I think this is typical illustration of the "Post hoc" fallacy.
There are no records of Azov perpetuating anti semitic or anti muslim actions in
Ukraine, so it is not clear if there is a relation.
Russia, on the other hand, openly peddling supremacy - Russian civilization, Russian
world, Russian character, Russian language - are the best and superior to anything
else.
"... As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened before in history. ..."
It was interesting to watch the Cable News divas go incandescent under the glare of their
own gaslight late yesterday
when they received the unpleasant news that the Barr & Durham
"review" of RussiaGate had been officially
upgraded to a "criminal investigation."
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what
the
thing
is that Durham might be looking into."
Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery,
inside an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it. Welcome to the Wile E. Coyote
Lookalike Club, Rache. You'll have a lot of competition when the Sunday morning news-chat shows rev
up.
Minutes later, the answer dawned on her:
"It [
the thing
] follows the wildest conspiracy theories from Fox News!"
You'd think that someone who invested two-plus years of her life in the Mueller report, which blew
up in her pouty-face last spring, might have felt a twinge of journalistic curiosity as to the
sum-and-substance of the thing. But no, she just hauled on-screen RussiaGate intriguer David Laufman,
a former DOJ lawyer who ran the agency's CounterIntel and Export Control desk during the RussiaGate
years, and also helped oversee the botched Hillary Clinton private email server probe.
"They have this theory," Rachel said, "that maybe Russia didn't interfere in the election ."
"It's preposterous," said Laufman, all lawyered up and ready to draw a number and take a seat
for his own grand jury testimony.
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room just
before air-time.
Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud was,
and struggled to even pronounce his name: " Mifsood? Misfood ? You mean the Italian professor?"
No Jeff, the guy employed by several "friendly" foreign intelligence agencies, and the CIA,
to sandbag Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and failed. I guess when you're at the beating
heart of TV news, you don't have to actually follow any of the stories reported outside your locked
ward, and maybe entertain a few angles outside your
purview
, i.e. your range of thought and
experience.
Next Andy hauled onscreen former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (now a
paid CNN "contributor") to finesse a distinction between the "overall investigation of the Russian
interference" or "the counterintelligence investigation that was launched by the FBI."
Consider that Mr. Clapper was right in the middle between the CIA and the FBI. Since he is known to be
a friend of Mr. Comey's and a not-friend of Mr. Brennan's one can easily see which way Mr. Clapper is
tilting. One can also see the circular firing squad that this is a setup for. And, of course, Mr.
Clapper himself will be a subject in Mr. Durham's criminal case proceedings. I predict October will be
the last month that Mr. Clapper draws a CNN paycheck -- as he hunkers down with his attorneys awaiting
the subpoena with his name on it.
The
New
York Times story
on this turn of events Friday morning is a lame attempt to rescue former FBI
Director Jim Comey by pinning the blame for RussiaGate on the CIA, shoving CIA John Brennan under the
bus.
The Times report says: "Mr. Durham has also asked whether C.I.A. officials might have
somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation." There's the next narrative for you.
Expect to hear this incessantly well into 2020.
I wonder if there is any way to hold the errand boys-and-girls in the news media accountable for
their roles as handmaidens in what will be eventually known as a seditious coup to overthrow a
president.
We do enjoy freedom of the press in this land, but I can see how these birds merit
charges as unindicted co-conspirators in the affair.
One wonders if the various boards of
directors of the newspaper and cable news outfits might seek to salvage their self-respect by firing
the executives who allowed it happen. If anything might be salutary in the outcome of this hot mess,
it would be a return to respectability of the news media.
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a
scoundrel
and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened
before in history. Two centuries before Joe McCarthy, the French national assembly suddenly turned on
the Jacobins Robespierre and St. Just after their orgy of beheading 17,000 enemies. The two were
quickly dispatched themselves to the awe of their beloved guillotine and the Jacobin faction was not
heard of again -- until recently in America, where it first infected the Universities and then sickened
the polity at large almost unto death
Former national security officials fight back as Trump attacks impeachment as 'deep
state' conspiracy
"What is happening currently is not normal," said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who served as
a U.S. intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia before stepping down in 2018. "This
represents a deviation from the way that these institutions regularly function. And when the
institutions don't work, that is a national security threat."
She was among 90 national security veterans who signed an open letter published Sunday
in support of the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint that Trump had acted
improperly in asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden in a July phone
call.
Trump has attempted to intimidate other government officials into not cooperating by
casting those who offered information to the whistleblower as "close to spies." The open
letter emphasized that the whistleblower "is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
Looks like a testimony of a member of Nuland neocons clique.
A reasonable Trump administration gesture of delaying military aid now is interpreted as a
pressure on Zelensky government. But not everybody in Zelensky government is interesting in the
USA military aid; most including probably Zelensky himself understand that this carrot s the way
US neocon push Ukraine in self-destructive game of to catching hot potatoes from the fire to
advance the USA strategic anti-Russian interests in the region.
Trump is right that Ukraine participated in Russiagate, but he is wrong that Poroshenko
administration acted as a supplementary force in Russiagate on its own initiative: in reality
Poroshenko was the USA marionette fully controlled from Washington and would do anything to
please Obama administration.
Notable quotes:
"... "He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they 'tried to take me down.' ..."
"Second, in May of this year, I became concerned that a negative narrative about Ukraine,
fueled by assertions made by Ukraine's departing Prosecutor General, was reaching the President
of the United States, and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian government as
robustly as I believed we should."
"Fifth and finally, I strongly supported the provision of U.S. security assistance,
including lethal defensive weapons, to Ukraine throughout my tenure."
...While Volker said Biden did not come up explicitly in his conversations, he made a point
of defending the former vice president in his remarks. "I have known former Vice President
Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice
President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me," he wrote. "I know him as a man
of integrity and dedication to our country."
... ... ...
Volker also testified that while he was aware that the Trump administration
had put a hold on needed military aid to Ukraine at the same time that he was connecting
Giuliani with Zelensky's government, "I did not perceive these issues to be linked in any way."
Volker said that "no reason was given" for the holdup, but it concerned him; he "stressed"
to staff at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council that the aid
was vital to Ukraine's security, "deterrence of Russian aggression," and Ukraine's relationship
with the US.
"That said, I was not overly concerned about the development because I believed the decision
would ultimately be reversed," Volker told Congress, citing the "unanimous position" of
Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the NSC in favor of restoring the aid. "I
knew it would just be a matter of time."
...On his contacts with Rudy Giuliani, Volker said he became aware early this year about "an
emerging, negative narrative about Ukraine in the United States, fueled by accusations made by
the then–prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, that some Ukrainian citizens may
have sought to influence" the 2016 presidential election in the US, "including by passing
information that was detrimental to" Trump, which they hoped would reach Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
"I believed that these accusations by Mr. Lutsenko were themselves self-serving, intended to
make himself appear valuable to the United States, so that the United States might weigh in
against his being removed from office by the new government," Volker said.
...Volker told Congress that he learned in May this year that Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to look into the unsubstantiated allegations that Biden had used his position as vice
president to benefit his son Hunter Biden. Volker said he contacted Giuliani to say that
Lutsenko was not credible -- Volker said they had a brief phone call, but didn't say how
Giuliani responded. Giuliani later canceled his trip. Volker noted that Giuliani claimed at the
time that Zelensky was surrounded "by enemies of the United States," a sentiment that Volker
said he "fundamentally disagreed" with.
...Giuliani came up repeatedly in Volker's conversations with Zelensky and the Ukrainian
president's administration. Volker said he had a private conversation with Zelensky in early
July, and told Zelensky that a "negative view" of Ukraine -- one that Giuliani held -- was
"likely making its way to" Trump. A week later, Volker met with Yermak, the Zelensky aide, who
asked to be connected to Giuliani.
...
Volker also testified to Congress that he met with Trump in May and suggested that
the president invite Zelensky to the White House, arguing Zelensky could help clean up
corruption in Ukraine. But Volker said that Trump was "very skeptical" of Zelensky at the
time.
"He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they
'tried to take me down.' In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations
with Mayor Giuliani," Volker said. "It was clear to me that despite the positive news and
recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President
Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving
other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing
him to retain this negative view."
Michael McFaul was the key person in failed "white color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012
designed to prevent reelection of Putin. h was recalled soon after Putin elections. So his praise
instantly suggests that the other person might be a color revolution specialist as well
In this sense his participation in Ukrainegate is just a top of his long carier as colore
revolution specialist. Ukrainegate does looks like the second Maydan.
Michael
McFaul, who served as the US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, called Taylor, who he's
known for three decades, "just a consummate public servant."
"I do remember when he was ambassador to Ukraine he saw the bigness of the moment -- this is
well before Russia annexed Crimea and went into Donbass -- that fighting for sovereignty for
Ukraine and democracy and anti-corruption, he was very committed to that," McFaul said.
Yet another female neocon hawk of the mold of Samantha Power. Hillary have found not only
Nuland, but several of them ;-) She denied that Nulandgate create a civil war in Ukraine to
advance the US geopolitical goals. She also denied influencing Ukrainian leadership, while in
reality Ukraine now is governed from the US embassy (which is sometimes called by locals called
Washington Obcom) . Such a hypocrite.
As for "do not prosecute" list -- do not believe anything government officials say
until it is officially denied.
And that EuroMaydan actually promote corruption to the level unheard during Yanukovich tenure
but with different players.
Notable quotes:
"... creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. ..."
"... the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ..."
"... the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ..."
"... As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false ..."
"... Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else. ..."
"... I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me. ..."
"... With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. ..."
The Revolution of Dignity, and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption, forced the
new Ukrainian government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated
that country's political and economic systems. We have long understood that strong
anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine; now there was a
window of opportunity to do just that.
Why is this important? Put simply: anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests. They
serve ours as well. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and
accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukraine partnership more reliable and more
valuable to the U.S. A level playing field in this strategically located country -- one with a
European landmass exceeded only by Russia and with one of the largest populations in Europe --
creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and
profit. Corruption is a security issue as well, because corrupt officials are vulnerable
to Moscow. In short, it is in our national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a
country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check.
Two Wars
But change takes time, and the aspiration to instill rule-of-law values has still not been
fulfilled. Since 2014, Ukraine has been at war, not just with Russia, but within itself, as
political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become:
the same old, oligarch-dominated Ukraine where corruption is not just prevalent, but is the
system? Or the country that Ukrainians demanded in the Revolution of Dignity -- a country where
rule of law is the system, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equally and according to
the law? During the 2019 presidential elections, the Ukrainian people answered that question
once again. Angered by insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukrainian voters
overwhelmingly elected a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority.
The transition, however, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of
the issues I expect we will be discussing today.
... ... ...
I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019.
Several of the events with which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in
country.
Here are just a few:
the release of the so-called "Black Ledger" and Mr. Manafort's subsequent resignation
from the Trump campaign;
the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the
investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ; and
the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin .
Several other events occurred after I was recalled from Ukraine. These include:
President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskiy;
All of the discussions surrounding that phone call; and
Any discussions surrounding the reported delay of security assistance to Ukraine in
Summer 2019.
During my Tenure in Ukraine
As for events during my tenure in Ukraine, I want to categorically state that I have
never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any
other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to
refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former
Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or
disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false -- a story that Mr. Lutsenko,
himself, has since retracted.
Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard
the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's
orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such
a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.
Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the
Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.
I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations
with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course
of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or
indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total
of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's
motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.
Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our
anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
"... "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ." ..."
"... I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never excuse war. ..."
"... Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world order to add to its Degeneracy. ..."
"... They conflate PNAC strategy with US security and anyone not in to military intervention for the PNAC is a traitor. ..."
This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media
with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who
lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.
To [Samantha Power] applies Scott Fitzgerald's often cited comment. Once Biden is back in
power, all these people will come back from the cold & rain the bombs on the globally
deplorables.
Lily Lynch @lilyslynch
This is what institutional, "humanitarian" power looks like: Fluff pieces in liberal media
with zero input from people on the receiving end of your bombs; unchecked power to decide who
lives and who dies; and (most of all) never having to answer for it.
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then
retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them
together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made . . . ."
"liberal internationalism in Obama's cabinet. That made her [Powers] a target for his
critics. Her openness to military intervention – she was against [W Bush?] it in Iraq
but for it in Libya – drew flak from the left."
How can a supposed liberal [Obama was not a liberal in a traditional sense, maybe post
modern?] favor military intervention?
Does it involve ignoring "state run industrial age mass murder"?
Does it see a rationalized outcome to justify state mass murder?
I think post modern morality goes more towards the means don't matter much less the end---
see Libya!
I have not always been a pacifist, but my view is "liberal internationalism" can never
excuse war.
Particularly, as US pushed "liberal internationalism" is maintaining a post WW II world
order to add to its Degeneracy.
Ukraine's most recent popularity among cold warriors started when Bill Clinton decided that
NATO should surround Russia. Coincidental with breaking and continuity of certain oligarchs'
fortunes. up Serbia.
Then the pro West coup in 2014....
Maybe as part of the impeachment the house could go in to what US was doing in Kyiv up to
and through the coup.
Note in the article Javelin systems are a foreign military sales case, run by the DoD,
"approved" by Depts of Commerce and State.
Javelin, guided anti tank missile system, is not solely a defensive weapon unless you look
at U S Grant on Richmond as a defensive campaign...... Reply Monday, September 30, 2019 at 06:50 AM ilsm said in reply to
Fred C. Dobbs... "Deductive reasoning" within the media message is mob control.
"It ain't what you know... it's what you know that ain't so"#. Keep reading the mainstream
media!
Given enough time [and strategy wrt 2020 election] we will get to the bottom of Obama's
"criminal influence" on 2016 election.
It takes a lot more to debunk the Biden, Clinton, Nuland, Obama Ukraine drama. To my mind,
Ukraine needs to be clean as driven snow* to "earn" javelins to kill Russian speaking
rebels.
Why do US from Obama+ fund rebels in Syria (Sunni radicals mainly) and want to send tank
killers to suppress rebels where we might get in to the real deal?
# conservatives have been saying that about the 'outrage' started by the MSM for
decades.
Seems that the opposition press wants us to display mob outrage to make Trump foreign
policy for him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP. Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion.
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some
phony reason to be outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods.
But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder. The polling on
Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents largely see it serious,
independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%. This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing
well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden. As you say Biden is history, as are the
democrats' chances in 2020 for every national office.
"... The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President Obama. ..."
The FBI knew the
Steele dossier was nonsense before they used it to get the FISA court to issue the warrant
to begin spying on Carter Page leading to the Russia collusion hoax. John Solomon of
The Hill found a second document that the FBI knew contained false information, but they
used it to get the search warrant against Paul Manafort anyway.
Per Solomon:
The second document, known as the "black cash ledger," remarkably has escaped the same
scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as
Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.
In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a
criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017
for bank records to prove
he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.
There's just one problem: The FBI's public reliance on the ledger came months after the
feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn't be trusted and likely was a fake,
according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.
When
the NY Times reported the news about the ledger, they positioned it as a big scandal as
they do with almost everything associated with Donald Trump:
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
( ) The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev. The room held two safes stuffed with $100
bills, said Taras V. Chornovil, a former party leader who was also a recipient of the money
at times. He said in an interview that he had once received $10,000 in a "wad of cash" for a
trip to Europe.
Nazar Kholodnytsky, Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor, told John Solomon that he had
told his State Dept contacts and FBI agents that his colleagues who found the ledger thought it
was bogus around the same time the Times published the story late August 2916.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that
time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody," Kholodnytsky
said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
This is the second incident of Obama's State Department ignoring Ukraine evidence.
Two months ago we
learned that senior member of Ukraine's Prosecutor General's International Legal
Cooperation Dept. told John Solomon that since last year, he's been blocked from getting visas
for himself and a team to go to the U.S. to deliver evidence of Democratic party wrongdoing
during the 2016 election to the DOJ. The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an
answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador,
Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and
Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President
Obama.
Solomon gives some more examples of the FBI being told the ledger was as real as a
three-dollar bill. But that's when it gets really dicey because according to three of Solomon's
sources, Mueller's team of political hitmen and the FBI were given copies of one of the
warnings.
Because they knew the ledger was false Mueller and the FBI couldn't use the ledger to
establish probable cause to investigate Manafort because it " would require agents to discuss
their assessment of the evidence -- and instead cited media reports about it." Even though the
feds assisted on one of those stories as sources
For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit
supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort's house, citing it as one of the reasons
the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
"On August 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine
and Russia -- including an alleged 'black ledger' of off-the-book payments from the Party of
Regions to Manafort -- Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump Campaign," the July
25, 2017, FBI agent's affidavit stated.
Three months later, the FBI went further in
arguing probable cause for a search warrant for Manafort's bank records, citing a
specific article about the ledger as evidence Manafort was paid to perform U.S. lobbying work
for the Ukrainians.
"The April 12, 2017, Associated Press article
reported that DMI [Manafort's company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI
that correspond to payments in the 'black ledger,' " an FBI agent
wrote in a footnote to the affidavit.
Guess who helped the AP with their story -- the DOJ's Andrew Weissmann who later moved to
the special prosecutor's office and became Mueller's chief hit-man.
So just as they had done in the anti-Trump investigation "the FBI cited a leak that the
government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though
it had been clearly warned about the document."
Whether or not Paul Manafort deserved to be jailed is irrelevant. Part of the search
warrants against him were lies that the prosecutors knew were false. The judgments against him
should be tossed out because they contain the fruit of the poisonous tree. Our justice system
promises equal justice for all, but the FBI and Special Prosecutor cheated in the case of
Manafort.
How a Shadow Foreign Policy in Ukraine Prompted
an Impeachment Inquiry https://nyti.ms/2m0n5aY
NYT - Kenneth P. Vogel, Andrew E. Kramer
and David E. Sanger - September 28
WASHINGTON -- Petro O. Poroshenko was still the president of Ukraine earlier this year
when his team sought a lifeline. With the polls showing him in clear danger of losing his
re-election campaign, some of his associates, eager to hold on to their own jobs and
influence, took steps that could have yielded a signal of public support from a vital ally:
President Trump.
Over several weeks in March, the office of Ukraine's top prosecutor moved ahead on two
investigations of intense interest to Mr. Trump. One was focused on an oligarch -- previously
cleared of wrongdoing by the same prosecutor -- whose company employed former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s son. The other dealt with the release by a separate Ukrainian law
enforcement agency to the media of information that hurt Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign.
The actions by the prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, did not come out of thin air. They were the
first visible results of a remarkable behind-the-scenes campaign to gather and disseminate
political dirt from a foreign country, encouraged by Mr. Trump and carried out by his
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. In the last week their engagement with Ukraine has
prompted a formal impeachment inquiry into whether the president courted foreign interference
to hurt a leading political rival.
The story of how Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani operated in Ukraine has emerged gradually in
recent months. It was laid out in further detail in the past week in a reconstructed
transcript of Mr. Trump's phone call this summer with a new Ukrainian president and in a
complaint filed by a whistle-blower inside the United States government.
Along with documents and interviews with a wide variety of people in Ukraine and the
United States, the latest revelations show that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani ran what amounted
to a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that unfolded against the backdrop of three elections
-- this year's vote in Ukraine and the 2016 and 2020 presidential races in the United
States.
Despite the findings of United States intelligence agencies and the Justice Department
that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump was driven to
seek proof that the meddling was linked to Ukraine and forces hostile to him, even fixating
on a fringe conspiracy theory suggesting that Hillary Clinton's missing emails might be found
there.
Backed by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani, who once aspired to be secretary of state, sought to
tar Mr. Biden with unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety, while he and associates
working with him in Ukraine on the president's agenda pursued their own personal business
interests.
With the political landscape scrambled by Mr. Poroshenko's defeat in April and the arrival
of a new cast of Ukrainian officials, the approach pursued by Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump
undercut official United States diplomacy.
And the signals sent by Mr. Trump -- long skeptical of the strategic value of backing
Ukraine against Russia, its menacing neighbor to the east -- complicated efforts by the new
Ukrainian government to fortify itself against Moscow.
The intensifying overlap this summer between Mr. Trump's political agenda in Ukraine and
his official foreign policy apparatus is now at the center of an impeachment inquiry that
will examine whether the president of the United States directed or encouraged his
subordinates to lean on a vulnerable ally for personal political gain.
Among the subjects covered in a subpoena sent Friday by House Democrats to Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo and demands for depositions from American diplomats was Mr. Trump's
decision to freeze a $391 million military aid package to Ukraine this summer not long before
his July 25 call with Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who defeated Mr.
Poroshenko this spring.
Democrats are also looking into the recall in the spring of the United States ambassador
to Kiev, Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who was seen as
insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump by some of his conservative allies. On Friday evening, the
State Department's special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, abruptly resigned, not long after
receiving a summons from House Democrats to sit for a deposition in the coming week.
Mr. Trump has dismissed the impeachment investigation as another "witch hunt."
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Giuliani defended his efforts to push the Ukrainians to
investigate Mr. Biden, his son, Hunter Biden, and others. He asserted that he was not doing
it to try to influence the 2020 presidential election, though Mr. Biden is a leading
contender for the Democratic nomination to challenge Mr. Trump.
"I was doing it to dig out information that exculpates my client, which is the role of a
defense lawyer," he said.
Mixing Business and Politics
In the months before the steps taken in March on the politically explosive investigations
sought by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani had met at least twice with the man who would become a
central figure in his efforts and a target of criticism in both countries: Mr. Lutsenko, 54,
Ukraine's top prosecutor.
First at a meeting in New York and later in Warsaw, Mr. Giuliani pushed Mr. Lutsenko for
information about -- and investigations into -- a pair of cases of keen interest to his
client.
They included the Bidens' activities in Ukraine and the release during the 2016 campaign
of incriminating records about Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's campaign chairman. Mr. Giuliani
said early this year he had become increasingly convinced that the Manafort records were
doctored and disseminated by critics of Mr. Trump to sabotage his campaign, and later used to
spur the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
No evidence supports this idea and Mr. Manafort's own retroactive filings under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act corroborated the Ukrainian documents, which also matched
financial records in the United States.
Still, it was not long before Mr. Trump, sensitive to any questions about the legitimacy
of his 2016 victory, began echoing Mr. Giuliani's language about what they viewed as the
Ukrainian origins of the Russia investigation.
But Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani had also taken a growing interest in the role played by Mr.
Biden, as vice president, in the dismissal of a previous Ukrainian prosecutor who had
oversight of investigations into an oligarch who had served in a previous Ukrainian
government and whose company had employed Hunter Biden. No evidence has surfaced that the
former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the dismissal of
that prosecutor, whose ouster was being sought by other Western governments and institutions
concerned about corruption in the Ukrainian government.
In their first meeting, in January, Mr. Lutsenko later told people, Mr. Giuliani called
Mr. Trump and excitedly briefed him on the discussions. And once Mr. Lutsenko's office took
procedural steps to advance investigations involving the Manafort records and the oligarch
linked to Hunter Biden, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump and their allies aggressively promoted
stories about the developments to conservative journalists at home, further turning a foreign
government's action to the president's advantage.
"As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges," Mr. Trump wrote on
Twitter in March, echoing the headline of one of the first such pieces by a Trump-friendly
journalist.
Mr. Giuliani had seemed to slide eagerly into his new role. After his hopes of becoming
secretary of state were dashed -- in part, former administration officials said, because of
his extensive foreign business ties -- he became a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump when the
president came under scrutiny by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Mr. Trump was publicly lobbying his own Justice Department for an investigation of Mrs.
Clinton and other Democrats. When he got no satisfaction on that score, Mr. Giuliani
volunteered to take on the role of independent investigator, empowered by nothing other than
Mr. Trump's blessing.
Mr. Giuliani rejected the suggestion that he was interfering in the execution of American
foreign policy, noting that Mr. Volker and the State Department eventually helped connect him
with a top aide to Mr. Zelensky.
"If they were concerned, I don't think they would ask me to handle a mission like this
that's sensitive," he said. "I feel perfectly comfortable with what we did in Ukraine."
Ukraine was familiar ground to Mr. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and presidential
candidate who had built a thriving consulting and security business.
Mr. Giuliani's activity on behalf of Mr. Trump allowed him to maintain, and increase, his
marketability to prospective clients around the world. Hiring him came to be seen as a way to
curry favor with the Trump administration. ...
Kurt Volker, Trump's Envoy for Ukraine,
Resigns https://nyti.ms/2mex0tH
NYT - Peter Baker -September 27
WASHINGTON -- Kurt D. Volker, the State Department's special envoy for Ukraine who got
caught in the middle of the pressure campaign by President Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W.
Giuliani, to find damaging information about Democrats, abruptly resigned his post on
Friday.
Mr. Volker, who told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday that he was stepping down,
offered no public explanation, but a person informed about his decision said he concluded
that it was impossible to be effective in his assignment given the developments of recent
days.
His departure was the first resignation since revelations about Mr. Trump's efforts to
pressure Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and
other Democrats. The disclosures have triggered a full-blown House impeachment inquiry, and
House leaders announced on Friday that they planned to interview Mr. Volker in a deposition
on Thursday.
Mr. Volker, a widely respected former ambassador to NATO, served in the part-time, unpaid
position of special envoy to help Ukraine resolve its armed confrontation with
Russia-sponsored separatists. He was among the government officials who found themselves in
an awkward position because of the search for dirt on Democrats, reluctant to cross the
president or Mr. Giuliani yet wary of getting drawn into politics outside their purview.
The unidentified intelligence official who filed the whistle-blower complaint that brought
the president's actions to light identified Mr. Volker as one of the officials trying to
"contain the damage" by advising Ukrainians how to navigate Mr. Giuliani's campaign.
Mr. Volker facilitated an entree for Mr. Giuliani with the newly elected government in
Ukraine, acting not at the instruction of Mr. Trump or Mr. Pompeo, but at the request of the
Ukrainians, who were worried because Mr. Giuliani was seeking information about Mr. Biden and
other Democrats and had denounced top Ukrainian officials as "enemies of the president."
...
(CNN) -- Former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker plans to appear at his deposition
next Thursday in front of the House Foreign Affairs committee, according to a source familiar
with his plans.
The source would not say if the White House is seeking to use executive privilege to
constrict Volker in terms of what he can say or provide.
Volker's appearance before the committee was announced just hours before the news broke
Friday evening that he had resigned.
Volker didn't offer a comment when contacted Saturday by CNN.
The former US special envoy is expected to face tough questioning after finding himself in
the middle of the controversy surrounding the intelligence whistleblower who had alleged a
coverup by the White House over a call made by President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky. That whistleblower also mentioned Volker's name in his complaint when
discussing interactions between himself and Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
concerning pushing Ukraine to look into activities of Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. ...
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukranian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
Let's say it's
January 2021
, and President Bernie Sanders has just assumed office. On his second day as
commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in world history, Bernie and his foreign policy
team are ushered into the White House Situation Room. After being seated at a long wooden table, a
group of diplomats and military officers informs Bernie that armed militants in the Central African
Republic have placed artillery around a town and are threatening to bombard its 10,000 inhabitants.
The townspeople have requested that the United States destroy the weapons and save their lives.
What should Bernie do?
For
Samantha Power
, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during Barack Obama's
second term, this really is no question at all: You eliminate the weapons. Power has dedicated her
life to promoting humanitarian intervention -- the idea that the United States, as the world's
"indispensable nation," has the moral duty to use its awesome military capabilities to prevent or
halt atrocities. First as a war reporter covering the Balkans in the 1990s, then as the Pulitzer
Prize–winning author of "
A
Problem From Hell": America and the Age of Genocide
, and finally as a government official
herself, Power has insisted that the "responsibility to protect" innocents from slaughter is
sacrosanct, even if it means U.S. military adventurism or violating foreign nations' sovereignty.
When civilians are threatened, Power believes we must save them.
THE
EDUCATION OF AN IDEALIST: A MEMOIR by Samantha Power
Dey Street Books,
592 pp., $29.99
For this position, she has been both praised and
lambasted. Power's supporters see her as a
moral beacon
in a world focused on power politics at the expense of human rights. In the last
two decades, she has shaped the way a generation of liberal analysts and policymakers understand
international relations and their role within it: Barack Obama has
called her
"one of our foremost thinkers on foreign policy," while Ben Rhodes has said she was
"who I wanted to become when I moved down to Washington." Meanwhile, critics like the law professor
Aziz Rana
understand her as an unreconstructed "war hawk," who employs the discourse of human
rights to mask American imperialism. For them, Power embodies the contradictions of liberal
geopolitics, in which lofty rhetoric is used to justify military action in regions where the United
States has at best tangential interests.
Power's memoir arrives at a time when she and her approach have fallen from favor -- both with the
current administration, which has adopted a nakedly transactional approach to foreign affairs, and
with left-wing foreign policy thinkers, who want to dismantle U.S. military dominance. Against
these tides, Power's new book seems intended to rehabilitate both her agenda and her own
reputation, as she narrates in vivid and engaging prose her rapid rise to some of the most
influential positions in U.S. foreign policy-making. It's the story of a sympathetic protagonist
just trying to save innocent lives -- yet one that inadvertently demonstrates the lethality of good
intentions. The most startling thing about a book titled
The Education of an Idealist
is that Power appears not to have learned very much.
Power's early years exemplified the peripatetic privilege of the global bourgeoisie. She was
born in Ireland in 1970, the daughter of a doctor mother and a dentist father. In 1979, after her
father's alcoholism destroyed her parents' marriage, Power's mother moved with Samantha and her
brother to the United States. Power quickly acclimated to American life; she lost her Irish accent,
began a lifelong love affair with baseball, and started on her high school's basketball team. She
also studied hard for the SAT, and in 1988 was accepted to Yale University.
During Power's sophomore year, the
Berlin Wall
came
down, the Cold War ended, and she became a political junkie who quizzed herself on the news of the
day. In the summer of 1990, she took a trip to Europe that would transform her life. Power began
her journey with a visit to the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. Walking through the bleak Secret
Annex drove home to Power "the horror of Hitler's crimes," and after her visit she started to keep
a list of books she wanted to read on "what U.S. officials knew about the Holocaust and what they
could have done to save more Jews." Soon after, she traveled to Dachau, where she "wondered aloud
what the modern world would look like if President Roosevelt had not finally entered the war."
(Ignoring, naturally, the Soviet Union's role in ending World War II, and that it was the Red Army
that liberated Auschwitz.)
Power's trip persuaded her that U.S. military force could legitimately be used to save innocent
lives. The Holocaust became for her the moral justification for American empire in an era in which
the United States no longer faced any perceived existential threats. Power concluded that if the
United States didn't rule the world, genocide was inevitable, and for the remainder of her career
she would view atrocities in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East through the prism of the
Holocaust: After all, if the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the 1940s, why
couldn't it do the same in the
1990s
,
2000s
, and
2010s
?
If the U.S. military had liberated victims of genocide in the
1940s, why couldn't it do the same in the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s?
The timing of Power's
trip was also crucial for her intellectual development. Before the disintegration of the Soviet
Union in the early 1990s, it was difficult to argue that the U.S. military could serve as a neutral
arbiter of human rights. Not only was the nation engaged in an avowedly political struggle with an
existential communist enemy, but the Vietnam War and several other failed interventions underlined
the dangers of using military force for ideological ends. Communism's collapse made it possible for
Power to imagine the U.S. military as a nonideological guarantor of broadly accepted human rights.
The empire could act for humanity, not politics. For Power -- and for many in her generation -- the U.S.
military was the base upon which the liberal international order of free markets, democracy, and
human rights would be constructed.
By her senior year at Yale, Power had determined that she "wanted to end up in a position to 'do
something'" about humanitarian crises. After graduating, she interned at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, where Mort Abramowitz, the endowment's president and a former ambassador to
Turkey, was turning his attention to the incipient Bosnian War. The more Power learned about the
conflict and its atrocities, "the more unnerved" she became. The war, she writes, provided her with
"a focus -- a specific group of people in a specific place who were being pulverized." To publicize
their suffering, she decided to become a
war reporter
, and in late 1993 she moved to the Balkans, armed with little more than a laptop.
Power was in Zagreb, Croatia, when on February 5, 1994, Bosnian Serbs mortared the
Markale
market
in Sarajevo, killing 68 civilians. As she watched news footage of "market vendors
carrying away the bloodied remains of their mutilated friends," she found herself "rooting for the
first time in [her] life for the United States to use military force." She spent the next year and
a half writing pieces on
civilian
suffering
that she hoped would engender a domestic outcry and convince President Bill Clinton
to forcibly end the siege of Sarajevo.
As time went on and Clinton refused to intervene (the U.S.-led NATO Operation Deliberate Force
would not commence until August 1995), Power began to consider a new track that was "less about
describing events and more about directly trying to shape them." The decisive moment came in July
1995, when she learned that the Bosnian Serb army
murdered
more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. The sheer brutality of the genocide
compelled Power to take up a place at Harvard Law School (she had applied and been accepted earlier
that year), with the intention of becoming a prosecutor "who could bring murderers to justice."
At Harvard, Power returned to the question that had haunted her at the Anne Frank House and
Dachau: Don't Americans, as citizens of the world's greatest power, have a personal responsibility
to save lives if we have the capacity to do so? She enrolled in a class on the ethics of using
force and, most important for her future career, she wrote a paper that examined "what U.S.
policymakers
themselves
were thinking" when they failed to respond to twentieth-century
genocides. This paper was her first step toward her 2002 book
"A Problem From Hell,"
which
codified a decade of liberal thinking about humanitarian intervention, and which transformed Power
into an
internationally renowned expert
on human rights and genocide prevention.
"A Problem From Hell"
had two main arguments. First, it claimed that throughout the
twentieth century "the United States has consistently refused to take risks in order to suppress
genocide" and, by not acting, had failed the people of Armenia, Cambodia, and Rwanda, among other
places. Second, the book maintained that in the future, U.S. decision-makers should take steps to
prevent or halt atrocities along "a continuum of intervention" that would range "from condemning
the perpetrators or cutting off U.S. aid to bombing or rallying a multinational invasion force."
Power did not, as many critics later avowed, unthinkingly advocate military intervention; rather,
she considered intervention as the final in a series of graduated steps intended to avert or stop
genocide. But as Power herself would soon learn, when Americans were presented with the hammer of
military force, many atrocities began to look like nails.
Power's book was perfectly primed for the post-9/11 moment, during which the question on many
Americans' minds was not whether the United States should remake the world, but how.
"A Problem
From Hell"
quickly became a cudgel in the
debate
over invading Iraq; as Power notes, several pundits clamoring for war invoked her book, arguing
that the 1980s Iraqi campaign of genocide against the Kurds gave the United States a casus belli.
Even though Power herself opposed the invasion, the writers who referenced
"A Problem From
Hell"
were not exactly misreading the book: Power
had placed
U.S. military intervention on the menu of options available to policymakers who said
they wanted to protect human rights.
In a moment defined by paranoia, revenge fantasies, and a sense of moral crusade, it is not
particularly surprising that
"A Problem From Hell"
was employed to rationalize war. The
book's relevance at the time, in fact, helps explain why it won the Pulitzer Prize for general
nonfiction in April 2003, one month after the George W. Bush administration invaded Iraq.
Samantha
Power in 2013 at an International Civil Society event with Secretary of State John Kerry and National
Security Adviser Susan Rice
Jin Lee/Bloomberg/Getty
With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, Power got the chance to use her ideas to shape U.S.
policy more directly. Obama and Power first met in the spring of 2005, when Obama was an ambitious
junior senator from Illinois. They worked together for a year (Power volunteered to serve in his
office), and when Obama won the Democratic primary in 2008, he hired her as a foreign policy
adviser, later appointing her to the National Security Council as senior director for multilateral
affairs and senior director for human rights.
In government, Power swiftly learned that few officials cared about human rights; many, in fact,
deemed them a distraction from more important issues of power politics. Nevertheless, while at the
NSC, Power helped expand by $50 million U.S. aid to Iraqi refugees, increased the number of Iraqis
allowed to resettle in the United States, and doubled the government's refugee stipend. She also
advocated for the United States to run for a seat on the
U.N.
Human Rights Council
, which it won in 2009. From this perch, U.S. officials spurred a number of
resolutions focused on revealing human rights abuses in various nations, including Iran, Syria,
Sudan, and North Korea. Moreover, Power proudly emphasizes, the United States "succeeded in getting
the Human Rights Council to reduce by half the share of country-specific resolutions on Israel."
As this last comment indicates, for Power, protecting human rights means disciplining nations of
the Global South that are not U.S. allies. Throughout
The Education of an Idealist
, she
barely mentions Israel or Saudi Arabia -- she says nothing about Israel's occupation of the West Bank
or the Saudi war on women and LGBTQI+ people. These silences are deafening, because the type of
world Power wants to build will never be realized if only certain countries -- namely, those that
stand outside America's imperial sphere -- are held to account. Her approach does not make much sense
from a pragmatic perspective either: U.S. officials have the highest likelihood of ending human
rights abuses in countries that depend on us; there is little point in spending political capital
in a mostly quixotic attempt to transform antagonists like North Korea.
Meanwhile, Power completely ignores the human rights violations that took place in her own
country under Obama's watch; like many liberal interventionists, she is far more vexed by suffering
abroad. Nowhere does she address
police violence
against African Americans,
mass surveillance
,
refugee
detention
, or
mass
incarceration
. Nor does she give much thought to the colonial violence that defines American
history: In
The Education of an Idealist
, she recalls inviting a Serbian official to meet
with her in the so-called Indian Treaty Room, where she lectured him on the importance of
apprehending the war criminal Ratko Mladić. Somehow, Power overlooks the irony of championing
justice in a room named for repeatedly broken treaties that the U.S. government made with the
native population against which it committed genocide.
Power's most consequential decision during Obama's first term displayed a shortsightedness that
has often accompanied her faith in U.S. military power. With the outbreak of civil war in Libya,
Power began to advocate vociferously in favor of intervention to stop a potential massacre at
Benghazi. In particular, during a March 15, 2011, meeting, Power endorsed U.N. Ambassador Susan
Rice's proposal to establish a
no-fly zone
over Libya and attack Muammar Qaddafi's forces. Obama approved Rice's plan, and on
March 19, a U.S.-led NATO coalition began
bombing Libya
,
initiating a process that concluded with Qaddafi's death. Despite the war's expansion and the chaos
that ensued, Power remains proud of her contribution. For her, "once the revolution spread, the
real question became how to use the tools at our disposal to bring about the best possible -- or the
least bad -- outcome."
But was that the real question? Here are some other questions that are equally important and
that she should have taken more seriously before Obama commenced Operation Odyssey Dawn: Is the war
likely to expand? If the war expands and Qaddafi is deposed, who will govern Libya? Is the United
States -- especially the American public -- willing to commit itself to reconstruction efforts? What
precedent does the intervention potentially set? Power never really asked these questions, because
ultimately, as the historian Stephen Wertheim has argued, she considers humanitarian intervention a
categorical imperative (as long as it doesn't involve U.S. allies, of course). For this reason,
throughout her time in office Power regularly encouraged war.
In Obama's second term, Power left the NSC to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
this position, she won many admirable victories: She aided in establishing a U.N. post
dedicated
to monitoring global LGBT rights;
brought countries together
to end the deadly Ebola outbreak of 2014; and promoted a resolution
that demanded the United Nations
deport
any peacekeeping units from countries in which U.N. soldiers were reported to have
committed sexual assault.
Yet it was also during Obama's second term that Power found herself less able to convince the
president of the moral necessity of intervention. In her memoir, she relates that when she first
learned that Bashar al-Assad's government had employed chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war,
she hoped "Obama would respond forcefully" and was disappointed when he didn't. Nevertheless, in
August 2013, Power was heartened to discover that Obama intended to answer the Syrian government's
murder of 1,400 people in a
chemical weapons attack
with airstrikes of military targets.
Power's expectations, however, were dashed when she was informed that Obama had decided to seek
congressional authorization for the airstrikes. "What happens if Congress doesn't support you?" she
asked the president. "Does that mean Assad could just keep using chemical weapons?" In the end,
Obama determined that Congress would rebuff his plan and
chose not
to go ahead with a vote; against Power's wishes, he also refused to intervene.
Instead, the president accepted Russia's offer to work together to disable Assad's chemical weapons
program. For her part, Power "shuddered at the inadequacy of the effort" to decrease Assad's
stockpile, despite the fact that U.S.-Russian collaboration provided an opportunity to build the
trust necessary to reach a political resolution of the conflict.
Power's recollection of the Syria debate highlights her meritocratic skepticism of democratic
politics. She writes that she "regretted that our administration had not ascertained whether we had
the votes
before
the President announced he was going to Congress. Had he known he would
fail, [she] did not believe he would have chosen the path he did." Power, in other words, wanted
Congress to rubber-stamp Obama's decision to intervene; she wasn't interested in having a real
public discussion about the potential benefits and drawbacks of using military force. In fact,
Power has the temerity to express disappointment with the U.S. public for refusing to support
intervention. Most Americans, she laments, "wanted no part of Syria. The student activists, civic
groups, churches, mosques, and synagogues that had come out
en masse
to demand help for
the people of Darfur [where in the mid-2000s a genocide erupted] were largely silent." Such a
statement evinces the privilege of an individual who has no reason to fear the
effects
another Middle Eastern intervention might have on her own family -- or on the people of
the Middle East.
The assumption running through Power's career is that the American empire is able to act as a
force for good in the world. At her memoir's end -- and in the wake of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and
Syria -- she affirms that "on issue after issue, either the United States brought a game plan to the
table or else the problem worsened." Though this might be true in some cases, it is certainly not
the rule, especially when one considers the
disastrous effects
of the nation's wars in the Greater Middle East; its
pointless
antagonism
of China, Russia, and Iran; its unwillingness to take the business-unfriendly steps
required to arrest climate change; and its unhesitating promotion of a capitalist system that has
exploited the labor of untold millions. The last several decades have taught us that the world
needs far less American "leadership" than it has enjoyed.
If you accept Power's premises, then humanitarian intervention boils down to a purely
philosophical inquiry: Is it right to save lives if one has the capacity to do so? The answer, of
course, is yes. The problem, though, is that intervention is not a thought experiment; it takes
place in a world of brutal realities. In particular, humanitarian forces confront radical
uncertainty. Is intervention likely to impel more violence in the long term? Do policymakers
actually know enough about the situation on the ground to make the "right" decisions? Is the
American public willing to commit itself to years-long reconstruction efforts? Honest answers here
may not sit well with idealism. In many instances, the most moral act is not to act at all.
Simply maintaining an enormous military able to intervene anywhere in the world carries its own
set of malign consequences: endless wars, global arms proliferation, a militaristic political
culture, the diversion of resources from welfare to weapons, and the strengthening of the
military-industrial complex, to name just a few.
The Education of an Idealist
does not
account for these social ills, or consider that the only way we can avoid them is by giving up the
capacities that enable us (theoretically, if not in practice) to alleviate foreign suffering.
The historian Samuel Moyn has
warned
that we must be careful not to elevate "the narrow and rare problem of when to send the military to
help strangers into the decisive one around which the future of American foreign policy revolves."
Power's memoir shows how much the discourse of humanitarian intervention obscures. By focusing on
the question "Do we save innocent lives?" liberal interventionists like Power shift our attention
from an equally important query: "How do we change conditions so lives don't need to be saved?" A
world oriented around this last question would look very different from the one we have now.
Daniel Bessner is the Pyle Assistant Professor in American Foreign Policy at the University of Washington
and author of
Democracy in Exile: Hans Speier and the Rise of the Defense Intellectual
.
@ dbessner
"... UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation. ..."
"... As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. ..."
"... CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.) ..."
"... The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he "really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye. ..."
"... For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: ..."
UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt
regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the
nation.
DATE: June 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM FOR : The President.
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Pompeo's Iran Agenda the Same As Yours?
A fter the close call yesterday when you called off the planned military strike on Iran, we
remain concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. You have said you do
not want such a war (no sane person would), and our comments below are based on that premise.
There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike
approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo's dismissive attitude
to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major
consequence.
Pompeo's behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to military action -- perhaps even
without your approval -- to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible
strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a
neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to
interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride
in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a
decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now
taken the lead on Iran.
That experience leaves us with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of
consequence to you and the country, including the contentious issue of alleged Russian hacking
into the DNC. The sketchy "evidence" behind that story has now crumbled, thanks to some unusual
candor from the Department of Justice. We refer to the
extraordinary revelation in a recent Department of Justice court filing that former FBI
Director James Comey never required a final forensic report from the DNC-hired cybersecurity
company, CrowdStrike.
Comey, of course, has admitted to the fact that, amid accusations from the late Sen. John
McCain and others that the Russians had committed "an act of war," the FBI did not follow best
practices and insist on direct access to the DNC computers, preferring to rely on CrowdStrike
reporting. What was not known until the DOJ revelation is that CrowdStrike never gave Comey a
final report on its forensic findings regarding alleged "Russian hacking." Mainstream media
have suppressed this story so far; we
reported it several days ago.
The point here is that Pompeo could have exposed the lies about Russian hacking of the DNC,
had he done what you asked him to do almost two years ago when he was director of the CIA.
In our Memorandum
to you of July 24, 2017 entitled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?," we suggested:
"You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this.["This" being the
evidence-deprived allegation that "a shadowy entity with the moniker 'Guccifer 2.0' hacked
the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks ."] Our
own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither
former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been
completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down."
Three months later, Director Pompeo invited William Binney, one of VIPS' two former NSA
technical directors (and a co-author of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum), to CIA headquarters to
discuss our findings. Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney on October 24, 2017 by
explaining the genesis of the unusual invitation: "You are here because the President told me
that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."
But Did Pompeo 'Really Want to Know'?
Apparently not. Binney, a widely respected, plain-spoken scientist with more than three
decades of experience at NSA , began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him
about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. As we explained in our most recent
Memorandum to you, Pompeo reacted with disbelief and -- now get this -- tried to put the
burden on Binney to pursue the matter with the FBI and NSA.
As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark
observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around
intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of
intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation,
which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015.
CIA malware and hacking tools are built
by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe
guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in
the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The
New York Times claims you were not informed.)
If Pompeo failed to report back to you on the conversation you instructed him to have with
Binney, you might ask him about it now (even though the flimsy evidence of Russia hacking the
DNC has now evaporated, with Binney vindicated). There were two note-takers present at the
October 24, 2017 meeting at CIA headquarters. There is also a good chance the session was also
recorded. You might ask Pompeo about that.
Whose Agenda?
The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the
impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he
"really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the
conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently
caught your eye.
Had he pursued the matter seriously with Binney, we might not have had to wait until the
Justice Department itself put nails in the coffin of Russiagate, CrowdStrike, and Comey. In
sum, Pompeo could have prevented two additional years of "everyone knows that the Russians
hacked into the DNC." Why did he not?
Pompeo is said to be a bright fellow -- Bolton, too–with impeccable academic
credentials. The history of the past six decades , though, shows that an Ivy League pedigree
can spell disaster in affairs of state. Think, for example, of President Lyndon Johnson's
national security adviser, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, for example, who sold the Tonkin
Gulf Resolution to Congress to authorize the Vietnam war based on what he knew was a lie.
Millions dead.
Bundy was to LBJ as John Bolton is to you, and it is a bit tiresome watching Bolton brandish
his Yale senior ring at every podium. Think, too, of Princeton's own Donald Rumsfeld concocting
and pushing the fraud about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to "justify" war on Iraq,
assuring us all the while that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Millions
dead.
Rumsfeld's dictum is anathema to William Binney, who has shown uncommon patience answering a
thousand evidence-free "What if's" over the past three years. Binney's shtick? The principles
of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method. He is widely recognized for his
uncanny ability to use these to excellent advantage in separating the chaff from wheat. No Ivy
pedigree wanted or needed.
Binney describes himself as a "country boy" from western Pennsylvania. He studied at Penn
State and became a world renowned mathematician/cryptologist as well as a technical director at
NSA. Binney's accomplishments are featured in a documentary on YouTube, "A Good American."
You may wish to talk to him person-to-person.
Cooked Intelligence
Some of us served as long ago as the Vietnam War. We are painfully aware of how Gen. William
Westmoreland and other top military officers lied about the "progress" the Army was making, and
succeeded in forcing their superiors in Washington to suppress our conclusions as all-source
analysts that the war was a fool's errand and one we would inevitably lose. Millions dead.
Four decades later, on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, we warned
President Bush that there was no reliable intelligence to justify war on Iraq.
Five years later, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, releasing the
bipartisan conclusions of the committee's investigation, said
this :
" In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact
when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the
American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually
existed."
Intelligence on the Middle East has still been spotty -- and sometimes "fixed" for political
purposes. Four years ago, a U.S. congressional report said Central Command painted
too rosy a picture of the fight against Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 compared with the
reality on the ground and grimmer assessments by other analysts.
Intelligence analysts at CENTCOM claimed their commanders imposed a "false narrative" on
analysts, intentionally rewrote and suppressed intelligence products, and engaged in "delay
tactics" to undermine intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. In July 2015,
fifty CENTCOM analysts signed a complaint to the Pentagon's Inspector General that their
intelligence reports were being manipulated by their superiors. The CENTCOM analysts were
joined by intelligence analysts working for the Defense Intelligence Agency.
We offer this as a caution. As difficult as this is for us to say, the intelligence you get
from CENTCOM should not be accepted reflexively as gospel truth, especially in periods of high
tension. The experience of the Tonkin Gulf alone should give us caution. Unclear and
misinterpreted intelligence can be as much a problem as politicization in key conflict
areas.
Frequent problems with intelligence and Cheney-style hyperbole help explain why CENTCOM
commander Admiral William Fallon in early 2007 blurted out that "an attack on Iran " will not
happen on my watch," as Bush kept sending additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf.
Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and
Persian Gulf Affairs, warned at the time that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to
attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something
[America] would be forced to retaliate for," she told Newsweek. Deja vu. A National
Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped
working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed such work.
We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one -- given the so-called "fog of
war" and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention
"cooking" shenanigans. We seldom quote media commentators, but we think Tucker Carlson had it
right yesterday evening: "The very people -- in some cases, literally the same people who lured
us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago -- are demanding a new war -- this one with Iran.
Carlson described you as "skeptical." We believe ample skepticism is warranted.
We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.
For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military
Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp , Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the
State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA
Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence
Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate
leadership (Associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic
Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator,
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of
Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential
briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East &
CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Sarah Wilton , Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency
(ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in
2003 in opposition to the Iraq War
Pretty harsh evaluationof Pompeo by usually very polite Chinese newspaper. And what is true that in no
way Pompeo is a diplomat. He is a lobbyist for MIC, no more no less. Kind of Madeline Albright of different sex.
As Chinese journalist observed "Diplomacy is governed by international conventions, which require all countries to
observe basic norms. Pompeo behaves like a gangster. He is abandoning the traditional US major-power diplomacy and defying the
gentle style of diplomats. "
Notable quotes:
"... Chinese people will remember Pompeo as a representative who breaks the bottom line of US diplomatic ethics. Letting such a person dominate US diplomacy will unsettle the world and put global peace at risk. ..."
"... Pompeo also has turned the US State Department into a strategic headquarters used to antagonize the international community. By provoking conflict between countries who have unique differences, Pompeo has done nothing but threaten for world peace. ..."
"... Additionally, Pompeo is arguably the most active lobbyist and by all standards, a bully who coerces US allies to block Huawei. He has also spared no effort in criticizing China's policies in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. ..."
"... Pompeo's background reveals military and intelligence capabilities. While serving in the US House of Representatives, he initiated multiple foreign conflicts. Confrontation seems to be his preferred weapon of choice and the only option when engaging with anyone. Only when confronted with China, Russia, and Iran, can he see his true self. He feels such aggressive behaviour is necessary to prove his personal value. ..."
Chinese people will remember Pompeo as a representative who breaks the bottom line of US diplomatic ethics. Letting
such a person dominate US diplomacy will unsettle the world and put global peace at risk.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues to be a politically troublesome figure in the
global arena. Washington stands at a critical juncture as it redesigns the national strategy
blueprint within a Cold War framework. The highest-ranking US diplomat has single-handedly
activated an outdated mindset, smashing it to the point of climax.
Known as an extreme
hardliner at the White House, Pompeo has redefined the traditional understanding of the chief
diplomat's role among the world's major powers with his signature reckless behaviour.
Pompeo also has turned the US State Department into a strategic headquarters used to
antagonize the international community. By provoking conflict between countries who have unique
differences, Pompeo has done nothing but threaten for world peace.
During his visits to other nations, Pompeo has bad-mouthed and tried to suppress China,
Russia, and Iran. His offensive remarks on China have destroyed the past
China-US diplomatic language that was enjoyed for decades, preferring to use negligent
words from his personal arsenal.
Additionally, Pompeo is arguably the most active lobbyist and by all standards, a bully
who coerces US allies to block Huawei. He has also spared no effort in criticizing China's
policies in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
His outspoken opinions on the recent events in Hong Kong was more of a Rubicon River
crossing than someone was just merely speaking their mind. Rather than adhere to a big power
game like his predecessors, Pompeo has transformed himself into anti-China flag on two
legs.
The US relationship
between China , Russia, and Iran will determine the future course of international
relations. The condition of each relationship serves as a wind vane indicating stability or
turbulence worldwide.
Pompeo is not only disrupting China, Russia, and Iran but also damaging the interests of
other countries. His words and actions have jinxed the very notion of 21st-century peace.
It is understandable how the US could feel threatened, due to the pattern shift among world
powers. However, Pompeo's goal has nothing to do with enhancing trust or easing concerns
expressed by other countries. Instead, he wants to turn US insecurity into a form of visible
hatred and increase hostility worldwide. He has consistently influenced stable international
conditions to the point of deterioration.
"Make America Great Again" is not a one-man show. The notion, which is nothing more than an
illiterate slogan, will never materialize and connect with the harmony enjoyed elsewhere
throughout the world.
In the past decades, the US has engaged in too many wars and conflicts, while also issuing
sanctions against foreign countries which were later drained of their national strength.
Pompeo has continued to push the US toward the flames of confrontation when dealing with
major foreign powers. He has not helped Trump achieve earlier campaign promises, and on the
contrary, he is making it difficult for the US president to keep them.
Pompeo's background reveals military and intelligence capabilities. While serving in the US
House of Representatives, he initiated multiple foreign conflicts. Confrontation seems to be
his preferred weapon of choice and the only option when engaging with anyone. Only when
confronted with China, Russia, and Iran, can he see his true self. He feels such aggressive
behaviour is necessary to prove his personal value.
Judging from the US and its Cold War reboot strategy, Pompeo has roamed too far outside of
the perimeter and has officially lost his way. The US government has labelled China as its
"strategic competitor." Meanwhile, Pompeo
has ignited hostility from China.
Pompeo's words are by no means an accurate consensus of the US public who also want to enjoy
a harmonious existence. By making volatile claims against China look reasonable, Pompeo has
turned himself into a cheerleader of hatred, who uses slander and vitriol for pompoms.
Having a secretary of state of this calibre is a tragedy of US politics and the sorrow of
international politics. The world needs to be exposed to the damage Pompeo has brought to
humankind's peaceful existence. His destructive power should not be tolerated because of his
title. He has repeatedly crushed diplomacy's constructive role while ignoring opportunities to
ease international conflicts. He is a stain upon the professional honour of diplomacy. The
global diplomatic community should detest his actions and join together in a crusade against
him.
This article originally appeared on the Global Times website.
"... Pompeo is a rapture supremacist warmonger that is not good for anything. ..."
"... Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud. ..."
Furthermore, Hu had some particularly harsh words for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, labeling the Secretary of State a "troublesome"
figure in US-China relations and insisting that Pompeo "can no longer play the role of a top US diplomat between the two countries."
... ... ...
Beijing's attacks on the secretary of state come as Pompeo wrapped up a string of meetings in the Middle East with King Salman
of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince.
Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've
had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief
diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud.
Pompeo plays 'I've Got A Secret" during an interview with Margaret Brennan of CBS Face The
Nation, responding to a request for evidence that Iran was behind a Taliban attack on a US
convoy in Afghanistan. Pompeo had painted the Taliban-claimed attack as one of "a series of
attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and
allied interests."
QUESTION: One of the things when you were at the podium at the State Department earlier
this week you presented as a fact was an attack that was carried out in Kabul in May. The
Taliban said they carried it out, but you blamed Iran for it. What evidence do you have
that Iran was behind that attack?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We have confidence that Iran instigated this attack. I can't share any
more of the intelligence, but I wouldn't have said it if the Intelligence Community hadn't
become convinced that this was the case.
QUESTION: So there's more that you can't share with us to back that up?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. . .
here
Juan Cole, an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East and South Asia,
takes a look at that charge. Once Again Pompeo Displays Hopeless Ignorance of Sunni & Shiite, Iran and
Taliban
. . .Pompeo painted the incident as one of "a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic
Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests."
Pompeo's statement is so embarrassing as to be cringe-worthy. It is either a lie in the
service of war propaganda or a display of such bottomless ignorance on the part of
America's chief diplomat as to be grounds for impeachment (or perhaps just consignment to
an asylum). . . here
Ali Vaez rebuts Mike Pompeo's terse, evidence-free
statement
accusing Iran of responsibility for the two tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman:
Pompeo delivered his remarks without providing any evidence to support his accusations, and then walked off the stage
without taking any questions. The Secretary of State's credibility has already been shot to pieces by his frequent lies and
misleading statements on a range of issues touching on everything from North Korea to Yemen to Iran, so he needed to clear
an even higher bar than usual to back up his accusations. He didn't come close. Aside from misleading the public and
Congress about important issues, Pompeo's serial fabrications have a real cost in that no one believes a word he says about
anything. It might be the case that Pompeo is telling the truth for once, but if so it would be extremely unusual for him.
I made that point earlier today:
I have previously discussed Pompeo's
complete lack of credibility
,
and it is worth revisiting part of that post now:
Pompeo is the chief representative of the United States abroad besides the president, so his habit of making things
up out of thin air and telling easily refuted lies can only harm our reputation, undermine trust, and cause even our
allies to doubt our government's claims.
Pompeo is the bully who cried "Iran!" so many times that we have no reason to trust his anti-Iranian claims now. The
fact that he and the National Security Advisor are so clearly slavering at the possibility of increased tensions with Iran
gives us another reason to be skeptical. We assume that they are trying to turn even the smallest incident into an excuse
for escalation, and so we naturally look at their claims of Iranian responsibility with great suspicion. Vaez's thread goes
through Pompeo's statement very carefully and points out the serious flaws and falsehoods, of which there are quite a few.
Once again, we see Pompeo's tendency to pin the blame for anything and everything that happens in the region on Iran,
and many of these are no more than unfounded assertions or deliberate distortions. For example, the Houthi attacks on Saudi
pipelines and airports are a result of the ongoing war on Yemen and the Saudi coalition bombing of Yemeni cities and towns.
All indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure are wrong and should be condemned, but we also need to
remember that these attacks are the direct consequence of belligerent and destructive policies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE
backed by the United States. If the Saudis and Emiratis stopped bombing Yemen tomorrow, the missile attacks on Saudi
targets would almost certainly cease thereafter. Just as Pompeo won't acknowledge the administration's role in goading and
provoking Iran, he refuses to acknowledge the role of the Saudi coalition's war in provoking Yemeni retaliation. He
desperately tries to make Iran the culprit of every crime, but instead of proving Iran's guilt it only calls into question
Pompeo's judgment and honesty.
Probably the most galling part of Pompeo's statement was his declaration that "Iran should answer diplomacy with
diplomacy." What diplomacy would Iran be responding to? Does Pompeo think his list of preposterous demands delivered as a
diktat last year counts as diplomacy? Does he think that waging relentless economic war on a country of eighty million
people qualifies as diplomatic? The Trump administration has chosen the path of provocation and confrontation for at least
the last thirteen months, and then they have the gall to fault Iran for its lack of diplomacy. If the administration had
not trashed the most important diplomatic agreement that our government had with Iran and proceeded to penalize them for
keeping up their end of the bargain, our two countries would not be as dangerously close to war as they are now. The
administration bears responsibility for creating the heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran, and it is their
obnoxious and destructive policy of collective punishment that has brought us to this point.
Pompeo proudly stated "We lie, we cheat " and even thought funny too. Guess that's one of the rare moments his
statement contained some truth at least.
You do have to admit, the blurred 30 second video of a boat next to the hull of a ship was absolutely DAMNING! It
proved conclusively that the Iranians launched unprovoked attacks on helpless civilian oil tankers.
Innocent
sailors would have left the limpet mines in place, so they could blow up and damage the tanker some more.
It could have been Iran, I don't know. This would be an understandable response for a country under blockade. I
would feel differently if people died.
People in Iran have died because of our illegal sanctions hindering flood
relief and medical care while Pompeo and others laughs at them. This does not include the suffering imposed on the
civilian population. I do not expect Iran to curl up into a ball and accept their punishment.
If this was an Iranian operation it demonstrates their competency as opposed to use wasting Jet fuel having
F35's circling around.
Iran means virtually nothing to the United States. They have nothing to do with our national interest. As far as
the tankers being mined; I have to say my first thought is that we (i.e. the United States) did it so we could
start a war. Very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Viet Nam war.
"... Brissot's dilemma when facing the French nationalists of his time was precisely the dilemma of contemporary neoconservatives when Donald Trump was elected president. Trump's criticism of the Iraq war and his nationalistic America First rhetoric was a direct repudiation of the central tenet of neoconservatism, the need to spread universal ideals with American military power. Or, as George W. Bush speechified, to seek "the expansion of freedom in all the world." ..."
"... In reaction to Trump's criticisms, some of the less-savvy neoconservatives, such as Max Boot and Bill Kristol, simply went out into the public square and lit themselves on fire in protest. These self-immolating Never Trumpers will likely never wield power again. ..."
"... continue to treat all non-democratic regimes with belligerence, continue to disparage the traditions of all other nations and cultures by asserting American moral superiority -- but adopt and co-opt the language of Trumpian nationalism. ..."
"... Cotton and Pompeo are, after all, good Straussians, admirers of the late political theorist Leo Strauss. They understand that the masses live in dark ignorance and that smart philosophers can manipulate them into supporting universal ideals through the use of cant phrases like "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... Like Brissot, Pompeo accomplished this bait and switch by rewriting history. He argued that the framers of the American Constitution were not skeptical of entangling alliances, standing armies and global commitments; they were actually warlike neoconservative crusaders. ..."
"... Pompeo argued, as forever war: "Conflict is the normative experience for nations." ..."
"... Adams's admonition was to respect other nations. Pompeo turned this upside down by warning other nations to respect us -- or else. ..."
"... He then, like Brissot, laid out the threats and conspiracies that erode "America's power." The only solution to this challenge was to "proudly" associate with "nations that share our principles and are willing to defend them." How about George Washington's warning against permanent alliances? ..."
"... There is here not even a faint resemblance to what Washington actually believed, but Pompeo's ideological hucksterism drew a warm reception from the Claremont audience, composed in part by people considering themselves scholars of 18th-century America. ..."
"... Toward the end of the speech, Pompeo proceeded to redefine the meaning of "America First" to make it agree with a neoconservative agenda. "Here is what this really means," he said. While Trump has expressed no desire to spread the American model, "America is exceptional -- a place and history apart from normal human experience " (emphasis mine) and "among political ideas, there is none better than the American idea." As compared with this metaphysical American Exceptionalism, the cultures, traditions, and political histories of all other nations shrink into illegitimacy and nothingness. ..."
Given contemporary events, one of the most interesting figures of the 18th-century French revolutionary period was Jacques-Pierre
Brissot, a leader of the Girondins, the neoconservatives of revolutionary France.
Brissot believed that the animating universal ideals of the Revolution had made France, as one of his allies put it, "the foremost
people of the universe," not just better than all earthlings, better even than Martians. Yet, despite France's position as the exceptional
nation, the Girondins worried that universal ideals were under siege by a complex array of conspiracies hatched by the absolutist
powers surrounding France.
The only way to confront these foreign conspiracies, he believed, was preemptive war. Robespierre, who hated Brissot, was skeptical.
Robespierre believed that war would strengthen the monarchy, which was wobbly but still intact in 1791, and that foreign adversaries
would be formidable military opponents. Robespierre famously quipped: "No one loves armed missionaries." In true neoconservative
fashion, Brissot countered that the people of many nations who were longing for liberty, especially the Dutch and Flemish, would
welcome France's revolutionary army with open arms. Sound familiar?
But, Brissot had a problem. When he rose to prominence in the Assembly in 1791, the monarchists and other traditionalists still
held significant sway, and Louis XVI was still on the throne. How to persuade these traditional French nationalists to launch crusading
wars to spread universal ideals when these retrogrades understood the only sound French foreign policy to be one that advanced France's
interests, its raison d'état?
Brissot's dilemma when facing the French nationalists of his time was precisely the dilemma of contemporary neoconservatives
when Donald Trump was elected president. Trump's criticism of the Iraq war and his nationalistic America First rhetoric was a direct
repudiation of the central tenet of neoconservatism, the need to spread universal ideals with American military power. Or, as George
W. Bush speechified, to seek "the expansion of freedom in all the world."
In reaction to Trump's criticisms, some of the less-savvy neoconservatives, such as Max Boot and Bill Kristol, simply went out
into the public square and lit themselves on fire in protest. These self-immolating Never Trumpers will likely never wield power
again.
But the clever neoconservatives, such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo, adopted the Brissot strategy. Continue the military
crusade for universal ideals, continue to treat all non-democratic regimes with belligerence, continue to disparage the traditions
of all other nations and cultures by asserting American moral superiority -- but adopt and co-opt the language of Trumpian nationalism.
Cotton and Pompeo are, after all, good Straussians, admirers of the late political theorist Leo Strauss. They understand that the
masses live in dark ignorance and that smart philosophers can manipulate them into supporting universal ideals through the use of
cant phrases like "Make America Great Again."
In Pompeo's May 11
speech at the Claremont Institute, the bastion of the West Coast Straussians, the Brissot strategy was on full display and,
understandably, was met with raucous cheering by the neoconservatives in the audience who understood that Pompeo and John Bolton
had succeeded in hijacking Trump's foreign policy for neoconservatives, a significant accomplishment. While Trump's rhetoric is
still the husk of American foreign policy, when it comes to core principles and political practice, "America First" is out, the
" Freedom Agenda " is in.
"Getting
along" with other nations is out; regime change and belligerence is in.
Like Brissot, Pompeo accomplished this bait and switch by rewriting history. He argued that the framers of the American Constitution
were not skeptical of entangling alliances, standing armies and global commitments; they were actually warlike neoconservative crusaders.
He argued that the "foreign policy of the early republic" could be characterized by three words: "realism, restraint, and respect."
This is fine as far as it goes, but he then proceeded to define these terms in ways that would have made them unrecognizable to
the Framers. Alexander Hamilton defined realism, Pompeo argued, as forever war: "Conflict is the normative experience for nations."
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, he defined "restraint" as the willingness to go to war, because "the temper and folly of our enemies may
not leave this in our choice." Finally, without a hint of irony as the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group was steaming
to the Persian Gulf in search of monsters to destroy, Pompeo quoted John Quincy Adams on the need for respect in international relations.
Adams's admonition was to respect other nations. Pompeo turned this upside down by warning other nations to respect us -- or else.
He then, like Brissot, laid out the threats and conspiracies that erode "America's power." The only solution to this challenge
was to "proudly" associate with "nations that share our principles and are willing to defend them." How about George Washington's
warning against permanent alliances? What Washington really meant in his Farewell Address, Pompeo said, is to have many, many alliances
"based on 'policy, humanity and interest.'" If he were president today, Washington would welcome America's alliances with Israel,
Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea in order to make certain, for example, that "each Indo-Pacific nation can protect its sovereignty
from coercion." Washington was really a neoconservative, you see.
There is here not even a faint resemblance to what Washington actually believed, but Pompeo's ideological hucksterism drew a
warm reception from the Claremont audience, composed in part by people considering themselves scholars of 18th-century America.
Pompeo's rhetoric represents the transvaluation of the Framers' foreign policy restraint into those of neoconservatism. It
is hard to know if Trump is aware that his foreign policy principles have been hijacked, but given his apparent disdain of intellectual
pursuits, the answer is probably in the negative.
Toward the end of the speech, Pompeo proceeded to redefine the meaning of "America First" to make it agree with a neoconservative
agenda. "Here is what this really means," he said. While Trump has expressed no desire to spread the American model, "America is
exceptional -- a place and history apart from normal human experience " (emphasis mine) and "among political ideas,
there is none better than the American idea." As compared with this metaphysical American Exceptionalism, the cultures, traditions,
and political histories of all other nations shrink into illegitimacy and nothingness.
George Washington's view of Pompeo's puffed up triumphalism would be that a nation that hubristically pounds its chest and claims
exceptional moral purity and righteousness may just be a nation that has lost its virtue. The American Framers were well aware that
the great republican experiments in ancient Greece and Rome ended with prideful imperial overreach.
In 1792, when Louis XVI read,
"in a flat, faltering
voice," the war proclamation against Austria he understood it to be a death sentence for the French monarchy. We should know
that if neoconservatives are able actually to carry out the wars that their ideology and will to power suggest, it would be a death
sentence for the American republic.
William S. Smith is Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University
of America
So, what is the representative of Allmighty Nation doing un Russia? Why bothering to hint
on better relations? Noted in the press conference was the absence of Pompeo's moralizing,
limiting itself on US position on issues. What is the point in this flying back and
forth?
Yes, Iran -- and arms control. Venezuela -- and arms control. North Korea -- and arms
control. I think they are paranoid about Russian weapons. And if Iranians by any chance have
some of the new weaponry, providing perfect testing ground, would Russia own to that? What
was obvious, no concessions on any issue from Moscow. Not even softened language.
This time,
it is different. The economic and military power has shifted east, Europeans forever without
a spine this time are spineless in all directions, and it will come as a shock to the
establishment that the presumed animosity towards Iran in Gulf, will nowhere to be found. Wil
Saudis host US troops against Iran, Doubt that deeply.
What is funny is that MARGARET BRENNAN is to the right of Pompeo. That's a real
achievement. Pompeo probably was surprised that he was put on the defensive from his right-wing position by this warmongering
female neocon.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You've got the whole world as your portfolio so let's
move on to Venezuela and Russia. There was this phone call between Vladimir Putin and President
Trump that just happened. The president described it to us in an Oval Office spray. Why didn't
he bring up election interference on this phone call when he said he did discuss the findings
of the Mueller Report which found sweeping and systematic Russian interference in 2016?
SEC. POMPEO: Well you'll have to ask the White House that question. The president's been
very clear. The administration has taken great action. I wish the previous one had stopped the
election interference that took place in 2016. They failed to do so. Between 2017 when
President Trump came into office and 2018, we had a successful election year, a set of midterm
elections. We're working diligently to ensure that the elections in 2020 aren't interfered with
by Russia, by Iran, by North Korea or anyone else. We have enormous resource deployed against
that challenge. And the American people should be sure that their government is working hard to
keep our election safe and secure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You said, this week, that Moscow has hundreds of people in Venezuela and
you were very clear that you think it was Russia that convinced Nicolas Maduro not to get on a
plane and to flee the country. Here's what the president said during his- after his phone call
with Vladimir Putin.
*Take SOT*
MARGARET BRENNAN: There seems to be a difference in how the president described the
situation and how you and Ambassador Bolton have described it.
SEC. POMPEO: No, no difference, no difference. The- the president has said, I think he in
fact tweeted, that the Russians must leave Venezuela. We've asked every nation that is in-
interfering with Venezuelan democracy- you've seen this. I- I was down on the border. We saw
mothers who couldn't feed their children, fleeing the country. We saw families that had sick
kids but couldn't get medicines, all sitting, was sitting within 50 miles of where we were
located. And Maduro won't allow it to come in. The president's been very clear, we want the
Cubans out. There are Iranians on the ground there. We want the Russians- we want everyone out
so that the Venezuelan people can get the democracy they deserve. That includes Mr. Maduro
leaving.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So when he says, the president says, "Putin is not looking to get involved
at all in Venezuela," that is not the president accepting him at face value?
SEC. POMPEO: You'll- you'll have to leave- you'll have to look at--
MARGARET BRENNAN: He knows that that's not the case?
SEC. POMPEO: The- the president has tweeted that he wants the Russians out of Venezuela.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So he was just putting a positive spin on things in that moment?
SEC. POMPEO: We- we are working very diligently to ensure that Maduro leaves and we get free
and fair elections in Venezuela. That will require the 2,300 Cuban security personnel, the-
frankly, the people closest to Maduro who are protecting the in- tight security for Maduro,
they've got to leave. We're working on that as well. We're working with the Cubans to try and
get an outcome that will let the Venezuelans have this opportunity.
MARGARET BRENNAN: On this, I know you'll be meeting with the Russian foreign minister in the
coming days. Is there a deal to be struck with Russia on this front? I mean, Russia benefits,
right, by having Venezuelan oil off the market, by having a level of influence in America's
backyard. Is the U.S. going to negotiate a deal with Russia on Venezuela?
SEC. POMPEO: I'll certainly bring up Venezuela, be one of many topics that Foreign Minister
Lav- Lavrov and I speak about- speak about. Whether there's a particular deal that can be
reached? Only time will tell.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina who I know you
know well tweeted this week, "Cuba, Russia sent troops to prop up Maduro in Venezuela while we
talk and have sanctions. Where's our aircraft carrier?" He seems to be calling a bluff here on
your mention and mention from others that military options aren't off the table. What is
actually being considered here because you can't refer to the use of military force lightly. Is
there an actual option that you are considering deploying in the coming days?
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
There were some reports quoted in Alexander Mercouris has a much rosier
view of Trump's intentions
that the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran. The Pentagon has found
its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't defend themselves, and that's not Iran.
@Endgame Napoleon Americans
probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own history. "
and they inquire why they hate us .
Don Bacon | May 11, 2019 11:56:00 AM | 23
@ ToivoS 16
the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran.
Yes, for the reasons I noted in my 4 above. The Pentagon has found its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't
defend themselves, and that's not Iran. The recent US defeats in Iraq and Syria also sent a message. So the Pentagon is now content
with aerial bombing of Afghanistan and Somalia while spending big bucks to (supposedly) contend with Russia and China, which of
course is also out of the question when it comes to execution.
The Pentagon materiel acquisition system is riddled with corruption and poor management, the army is handicapped by low recruiting,
drugs and obesity, the navy suffers from performance and maintenance problems, and the air force has been decimated by personnel
problems and by an overly zealous procurement of useless F-35 prototypes. So bombers dropping bombs on villages in poor countries
is as far as the Pentagon can go.
On May 14/2019 Pompeo is to meet Lavrov in Sochi! ..."Pompeo is scheduled to meet with Putin and Lavrov, the Russian foreign
minister, in Sochi on May 14 to “discuss the full range of bilateral and multilateral challenges.” Before that, he will meet with
officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow."...
A messenger boy on the errant trip overseas from his handlers. Something to tell in person, mano a mano no less.
..."“On May 13, he will arrive in Russia to meet with his team at U.S. Embassy Moscow before meeting with U.S. business leaders
and U.S. exchange alumni. Secretary Pompeo will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” State Department spokeswoman
Morgan Ortagus said."... That's rich, a nobody faces an unknown.
"... It’s also a white thing or Republican thing (Nikki Haley). But frankly, political Zionism is just as pro-Israel and is pervasive among nearly D.C. establishment politicos. People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as John Hagee. ..."
"... My only interest in the “State of Israel” is they should keep their hands out of our federal treasury, i.e. our tax dollars, and quit spreading lies that they are “just like us.” They are not. ..."
"... Christian Zionism is a minor problem. The major one is the Zionist fifth column in this country that infests and largely controls the government, the economy, the mass media, etc. ..."
Pompeo: "My Faith in Jesus Christ Makes a Real Difference"
Pompeo says
God may have sent Trump to save Israel from Iran
"As a Christian, I certainly believe that's possible," said Mr Pompeo ."I am confident that
the Lord is at work here,"
Pence, a Catholic Evangelical who almost became a priest: "I made a commitment to
Christ."
Christians? These Christians support a war on Yemen in which huge numbers of people are
dying of mutilation, cholera, and starvation, a war they could stop with a telephone call. They
similarly support butchery of Afghans from the air, massive killing in Syria, bombing of
Somalis, and torture chambers around the world. Such is their Christianity. They lack even a
shred of human decency. But they are Christians.
OLD TESTAMENT, THE ROOT OF CHRISTIANITY = PURE EVIL.
Thanks for the article, Fred. You are so right. But when I see the Pope kissing the feet
of alien invaders and Pence groveling to Israel, I remember these:
The 18th-century Anglo-American philosopher Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and
torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible
[i.e. the Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of
a demon, than the Word of God.” When he says Bible, Paine is referring to the OT.
“There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament….–books like
Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus*. The Quran pales in comparison.”–Jewish
author Dr. Samuel Benjamin Harris.
We have Pompeo, a malignant manatee looking to start wars in which he will not risk his
flabby amorphous ass also parading his Christianity
Actually Pompeo served in the military for five years, reaching the rank of captain. Now
he’s 55, so yes, he will not be risking his “flabby ass,” only his job.
Fred should really do more research, ‘cuz he just seems lazy.
Whatever Pompeo’s shortcomings, the guy’s resume is top-notch: first in his
class at West Point, STEM degree, Harvard law, veteran, successful businessman, yada yada. I
do find it odd that someone of his ilk believes in the Rapture; my only guess is that
he’s playing to his (former) Kansas electoral base, and he can’t back out now. No
way he believes this stuff.
Protestantism is pseudo-Christianity. It started 1500 years after the Christian Church was
founded and now has over 40K different splinter groups (denominations) in the U.S. alone.
This Johnny-come-lately of heresies began because of greed and lust, and as usual, a Jewish
revolutionary spirit (read E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit ).
But on Trump’s über-neocon turn E. Michael Jones sums it up well in this
Sputnik News interview of March 22, 2019:
I am not in favor of christian zionism but the irrational has always played a prominent role
in human politics, that being said I am a great fan of Fred Reed.
The one nice thing is that Israelophilia amongst young Americans rapidly drops off along with
secularization and Europeanization of social attitudes, as well as of course greater
diversity (Latinos couldn’t care less about creating Greater Israel). There was a
recent survey which showed that even young Republicans are not much more pro-Israel than
young Democrats. This Christian Zionism thing is very much a boomer thing.
There’s a good chance that the Trump administration is a last hurrah for the Israel
First agenda.
Christians didn’t invent hypocrisy, nor are they the only ones who apply it.
However, they are the one group that knows and professes to do better, so they are easy
target.
The closest to original Christianity is the Eastern Orthodox brand which is less corrupted
compared to Romanism with its heavy doses of ‘pagan’ influences.
Christian Zionism is a fraud like most American heresies including those snake-handling
‘churches’, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Identity, Christian
Science, Jehovah Witnesses plus countless Jim Jones-like cults.
In fact Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was initially a ‘Zionist’ till
he saw the ‘light’, prompting him to pen On the Jews and Their Lies (Von den
Juden und ihren Lügen) . The modern apostate Lutheran church has since been
compromised.
Besides the ‘perks’ of being philo-Semitic are terrible. Take the Brits. After
they failed to fulfill the fraudulent Balfour Declaration, Zionists turned nasty –
terror groups like the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang resorted to letter bombs, blowing up
hotels and hanging British troops with piano wire.
By contrast, Mr. Reed is one of these: https://www.marines.com/who-we-are/our-values.html
DUCTUS EXEMPLO
A Latin term that means “lead by example,”
it’s about behaving in a manner that inspires others.
Don’t know about you, but I am not inspired by a fat body who brags about lying,
cheating and stealing, just for starters.
He is also welcome to peddle his crazed religious beliefs somewhere else.
As an agnostic, I really do not give a rat’s ass what happens to the terrorist state of
Israel.
Israel’s battles are not my battles, and I resent anyone attempting to tell me they
are.
I also do have Iranian friends, but no Iranian enemies.
Notice to Mr. Pence: Iran is not my enemy. Israel’s enemies are not my enemies. I do NOT “stand with Israel.”
The United States of America is a separate country from the State of Israel, with
far different values.
I stand with the United States, the country of my birth, so long as it adheres to the
principles embodied in its founding documents, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the
U.S. Constitution. Lately, it does not appear to be doing much of that, no thanks to
shitheads like Mr. Pompeo, and his compadre in crime, Mr. Bolton.
This Christian Zionism thing is very much a boomer thing.
I disagree.
In my opinion, “Christian Zionism” is very much an ignorance thing.
Snake handlers and “young earth creationists” are probably its major
constituency. I was born in 1949, turned 21 and graduated university in 1970.
None of my friends past or present, Christian or not, believe such absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, it appears there are all too many who do.
@turtle You’re
pretty naive if you think the CIA doesn’t lie. Every intelligence outfit across the
world lies. You think MI6 doesn’t lie, like every day of its life?
Since you’re so interested in Israel, you might want to know that Fred Reed is a
total Johnny come lately on critiquing Israel. He used to make fun of people e-mailing him
about Israel. In 2005, he wrote a hugely embarrassing positive review of a book claiming that
Israel was getting a raw deal in the press because Palestinians were orchestrating the
coverage. Imagine shilling for a book like that. Fred Reed did.
In my opinion, “Christian Zionism” is very much an ignorance thing.
Snake handlers and “young earth creationists” are probably its major
constituency.
I was born in 1949, turned 21 and graduated university in 1970.
None of my friends past or present, Christian or not, believe such absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, it appears there are all too many who do.
It’s also a white thing or Republican thing (Nikki Haley). But frankly, political
Zionism is just as pro-Israel and is pervasive among nearly D.C. establishment politicos.
People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as
John Hagee.
But the rapid demographic shift and the the decline of whites in large metro areas will
certainly reduce future support for Israel and the U.S. kowtowing to Israel.
70 percent of school district’s newest students are immigrants, legal status
unknown
Seven of 10 new students in a Baltimore-Washington area school district are immigrants,
their legal status unknown and their second language English, according to a series of new
media reports about the impact of surging immigration on local communities.
A recent Baltimore Sun report said that of the 5,000 new students jamming Baltimore
County schools in the past five years, 3,500 are “recent immigrants or children whose
family speak another language.”
That has helped to double the percentage of students who speak English as a second
language, part of a national trend.
You’re pretty naive if you think the CIA doesn’t lie.
I never said that, or believed it either.
What I said:
I am not inspired by a fat body who brags about lying, cheating and stealing
Nor is Pompeo the only Pointer known to lie.
There was a certain General Powell, for example.
Perhaps the USMA should change their motto – truth in advertising, etc.
FWIW, I had two close friends in HS who were both USMA, Class of 1970.
I know for a fact neither of them would stoop to Mr. Pompeo’s level.
Since you’re so interested in Israel
My only interest in the “State of Israel” is they should keep their hands out
of our federal treasury, i.e. our tax dollars, and quit spreading lies that they are
“just like us.” They are not.
@Anatoly KarlinChristian Zionism is a minor problem. The major one is the Zionist fifth column in this
country that infests and largely controls the government, the economy, the mass media, etc.
Whatever Pompeo’s shortcomings, the guy’s resume is top-notch: first in his
class at West Point, STEM degree, Harvard law, veteran, successful businessman, yada
yada.
I would not consider a degree in engineering management a STEM degree
“This puts Evangelicals in the curious position of being pro-Israel but
anti-Semitic.”
Tuning around Freesat in Europe, particularly the UK, get you get a lot of religious
channels, mostly Muslim, but also more than a few Christian. One day I tuned past a Christian
guy standing in front of a phone bank and a flag of Israel, asking for money while expressing
his solidarity with Israel.
You make a good point Fred: They don’t care so much about the Jews, they just want
to get their hands on the Holy Lands, even if it takes every Jewish and Muslim life they can
throw at the problem.
“Actually Pompeo served in the military for five years, reaching the rank of
captain.”
The top of a Service Academy class only “reaching” the rank of Captain
(Railroad Tracks, not Bird) after five years of active service is hardly an accomplishment
… it is fulfilling the service requirement in exchange for a free-ride on the
taxpayers teat. He conveniently ended his service just before he might have been dragooned
into Gulf War 1, and if he did reserve time, it was while at Harvard Law; while many other
reserve officers had their civvy careers interrupted by an increasing ops tempo of
deployments that followed GW1, Mike did just fine.
Having been given seed money for his business by the Kochs and Bain Capital, he was
plucked, like B. Hussein Obama, out of relative obscurity and fast-tracked to greatness. Kind
of like a poorer George H.W. Bush.
@Swede55 There was a
Byzantium, but it wasn’t as Chi-Chi as Rome at the time of Christ. Making Rome the
centre of the Gurch then would be like making it New York or DC now. I would be hard-pressed
to see Christ himself embracing Rome as the seat of Christendom then, but it would not be
much of a reach for his followers who wanted to be closer to the cosmopolitan action of the
day.
I guess you’d call me one of those detestable fundamentalists, Fred. You see, I take
very seriously what Jesus says in the New Testament. The authority of the Son of God makes
clear that His interpretations are the ones that those really transformed and following Him
would model.
Now people who’ve never directly experienced things for themselves can be misled by
others, who will use the disguise of faith. As for love of country, patriotism is also
misused to become the first refuge of scoundrels: instead of loving your neighbors, used by
them as Mark Twain pointed out to require hating others in countries further away.
But what happens when you find out you’ve been lied to? For me, having had some
involvement with the military in the computer industry during the Cold War, it was clear
after the Russians abandoned sovietism that the American corporations involved cared not a
whit for liberty – war meant profits. Then came the lies justifying the Iraq war and
all its cousins, along with the Abu Ghraib tortures approved to the highest levels –
which because of my own involvement I knew had to follow the chain of command. Both religious
leaders and political leaders approved of these tortures. But although I had believed these
folks, the revelations and the excuses made did not jibe with my Savior’s clear
speaking in scripture – quite the opposite. This was not the Jesus I know, nor the
witness of the Holy Spirit who leads me.
Now these manifestations of political cooperation and human organizations calling
themselves Christian, are self identifying. They claim the name Christian, but when they defy
Christ’s own example and teaching, they are in fact anti-Christian, either
self-deceived or knowingly deceiving others.
All along, there have been those who truly were following His path and taking up His
cross, even where weeds choked the Gospel as best they could, and wolves moved among the
sheep in disguise. Often those with the power to do so marginalized, persecuted and even
tortured and murdered these, while masquerading as Christians while defying His every
command.
I am evangelical, in that I would like to see others meet the real Jesus, not substitute
false idols like the War Jesus constructed by merely human hands. But I also know that
despite billions supposedly Christian, Jesus warned the path is narrow, the road to
destruction broad, and that those taking up His cross would ever only be a minority –
and that such a minority would be persecuted, even by religious authorities. Such folks
cannot be conflated with membership rolls on institutional records, but are known to God.
My orientation of faith is identical to that of the anabaptists who were the Christians
persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike, reformers who refused to take up arms against
either. They often rescued their own pursuers, yet were rewarded with burning, drowning,
throttling, dismemberment, along with wives and children by those who pretended they were
serving Christ by doing so.
So I appreciate your pointing out how wicked it is to do evil things in the name of
Christ, but I would like to remind you that just as the counterfeit can’t exist without
the genuine, that there are those who won’t participate in these things, because they
are determined to follow Christ, the Holy Spirit and the conscience this dictates, regardless
of both those who hate Christ and those who worship a false Christ whose actions bear more
resemblance to the methods of Satan himself.
@turtle The honor
code at West Point was always taken seriously. Like so much else it has deteriorated lately,
but it’s still observed.
Unfortunately, once the plebs graduate and become officers they enter the United States
Army, in which lying is required to advance your career. The entire officer corps as a result
is dishonest, and the higher your rank the greater the lying.
John T. Reed refused to sign false reports as a junior officer in Vietnam, the result of
which was that he was never promoted (highly irregular) and his commanding officer attempted
to get him killed.
Fred Reed was an enlisted Marine, but he has said similar things about officers and
especially brass.
@Thorfinnsson Thank
you for the link to Mr. John T. Reed’s site.
He evidently embodies the sort of integrity we should expect from leaders, but seldom
get.
they enter the United States Army, in which lying is required to advance your career.
The entire officer corps as a result is dishonest, and the higher your rank the greater the
lying.
That bears an awesome similarity with dating and romance. I wonder how come.
Excellent piece by Mr Reed…he really tore a righteous strip of bacon off that walking
side of pork Pompeo…
There are millions of evangelical Christians that fanatically support Israel for the
reason of this end times nonsense, as stated in the article…so that is a very large
base…and not all of them insist that Jews must convert…that is just one slice
of a very wide spectrum…
In fact not all evangelical Christians support Israel…there is a very wide spectrum
on the Israel issue…right up to those that see Iran and Russia [especially] in a
positive light…which is encouraging…
These American Christians sympathize with Russia’s Christianity and also with the
conservatism they see in Russian society, and the sobriety of Russian politics…I have
no idea how the numbers stack up for these various slices of the spectrum…but the
mainstream is probably along the lines of the Pences and Pompeos of the world…
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to
me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive
out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly,
‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
N
Christian fundamentalism is full of whack jobs and Dr. Strangeloves and Pompeo and Pence are
two shining examples. I just hope they don’t get us all blown to smithereens.
In Fred’s adopted nation a six year old was just caught in the crossfire of drug
cartel gunfire in Cancun and has died of his injuries. This is hard to believe as Fred tells
us that in addition to being a nation on the cutting edge of technology, it also has the most
bookstores per square mile of any nation. So the bookish Mexican people should be reading
books and not dealing drugs and shooting people, especially kids:
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/04/26/cartel-gunfire-in-cancun-kills-6-year-old-wounds-parents/
Mexico has 33K homicides annually but Fredrico gets peeved if American whites don’t
want these problems in America.
@Anonymous
“the schism of Eastern Orthodoxy” is an odd way to put it; the Roman Catholics
flounced out from the old church in the schism of 1054. Or to put it another way, the Pope
flounced out from the other Patriarchs.
“Ss. Peter and Paul went to Rome”: Paul yes; he had no choice, being under
arrest. Peter: of course he didn’t, that’s just another of those old religious
fabrications.
If the earliest Christians had a True Home it was either Jerusalem or Galilee, of
course.
@Brabantian
“the 3 Abrahamic religions … all founded by the same kind of desert tribals used
to life and death battles for control of a single watering hole.
Hardly. It would seem that the earliest Hebrews were probably settled villagers in the
hills of Palestine. The earliest Christians were villagers in Galilee.
It’s not at all clear who the earliest Moslems were, since the initial conquerors
were referred to as Saracens: the witness statements to their success make no reference to
their having a distinct religion or distinct holy book. They do seem to have had a general
called Mahomet, though, who had earlier been a merchant. Where they were from is also
unclear. There’s a fair chance that they were originally from around Petra, which is on
the edge of cultivation, not deep in the Arabian desert.
@turtle West Point
honor grad here. Also a conscientious objector. It took me a bit to overcome my childhood
indoctrination into the cult of imperialism, but before long, I realized that imperialism was
in no way defending the people who reside in the USA.
The sad reality of current US culture is that West Point is extremely proud of lying,
cheating, and stealing Pompeo, and considers me to be an embarrassment. The true mission of
West Point is not “Duty, Honor, Country” as far as I can tell, but to bait
idealistic young men and women into attending college there in an attempt to turn them into
soulless, self-serving, corporate bag men like they did to Mike Pompeo.
(FWIW, my money is on Pompeo having somewhat cheated his way through West Point. I have
seen it with my own eyes, and Pompeo does not seem that intelligent to me)
@KenH Christian
fundamentalism is also full of con-artists who take the gullible for a ride. Pence seems
quite dull. He might really believe that stuff. Pompeo is the wolf in sheep’s clothes.
I have enough faith to at least hope that short of complete repentance (as likely as him
getting knocked off a horse by God) – short of that, a special hell awaits him
@The scalpel Porker
Pompeo on a horse…?…being a horse lover that mental image sends shivers down my
spine…
OTOH…a well placed back hoof to the nether regions of the ‘malignant
manatee’ [classic coinage right there…thanks Mr Reed]…would be divinely
appreciated…let us hope and, dare I say it, pray…
The top of a Service Academy class only “reaching” the rank of Captain
(Railroad Tracks, not Bird) after five years of active service is hardly an accomplishment
…
@Truth Captain after
5 years is the most common result. The rank of Major is used as an incentive to stay in after
one’s (typically 5 year) obligation. Looking at Plumpeo, I’d guess one of the
reasons he got out was because he couldn’t pass his fitness tests
@tex tickles If the
Torah isn’t for Christians, why is it quoted 695 times and referenced a total of 4,105
times in the New Testament?
How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in
the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old
Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many
other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament
figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which
scholar’s work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New
Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617
The Inquisition: It’s prolly best to begin at the beginning, with Moses, the first, and
deadliest, inquisitor.
Moses, the 1st inquisitor ordered killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)
Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25).
Forty Seven Thousand ordered killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days, including
women and children.
Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, “Inquisition” (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1989, p. 87),
The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its
victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more
restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the
same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried
out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that
in comparable secular courts.
++++++++++++++
Mr. Reed is an odd individual whose understanding of Christianity suffers from a lack of
knowledge.
He seems to think that Christian Catholics have no right to defend themselves and he also
suffers from the error of Presentism.
Of course, secular governments were far worse during the era when torture was acceptable
and, of course, one must note that heretics were treated then as today’s traitors ought
be treated.
If Germany had an Inquisition, wed have never heard of Hitler, but men like Fred hated
that which men like Fred have never understood
@Anonymous
Christianity itself, in all forms, is pseudo-Jewdaism, from the very start of it, even for
you ever-kvetching Jew-worshiping Catholics.
• “ To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the
giving of the law, the worship …’” Catechism of the Catholic
Church
• “ We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews
.” John 4:22
• “For it is we [Christians] who are the Circumcision.” Philippians 3:3
@Patrick
“Christian Zionism” has been woven into the fabric of the Jew-worshiping cult of
Christianity, from the very beginning, with Jewish storytellers writing these Zionist
principles the Jew Testament:
• Matthew 21:5 “Say to Daughter Zion , ‘See, your king comes to
you.”
• John 12:15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion ; see, your king is
coming.”
• Romans 9:33 “See, I lay in Zion a stone…”
• Romans 11:26 “The deliverer will come from Zion …”
• Hebrews 12:22 “Mount Zion , to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem.”
• 1 Peter 2:6 “See, I lay a stone in Zion .”
• Revelation 14:1 “Standing on Mount Zion , and with him
144,000.”
@Mick Jagger gathers no
Mosque The Inquisition started in 12th-century France . The Spanish
Inquisition wasn’t the only region of Inquisition. Stop trying to minimize the horrors.
@The scalpel
Christianity was started by con -artists who take the gullible for a ride. As Hebrews
11:1 says, “Now faith is con fidence in what we hope for and assurance about
what we do not see.” That sounds exactly like a sales pitch from con fidence
man Bernie Madoff, another one of the Hebrews.
@dearieme The
earliest Christians were villagers in Galilee? Bible says Syria; “Christians first
in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26) Not surprisingly, it seems Muslims got their start from
Syria too; as the Quran was substantially derived from Syriac Christian liturgy. ( Luxenberg, 2007 )
Let’s not forget Christians and Muslims from Syria both like to shout “Aloha
Snackbar!”
@Mick Jagger gathers no
Mosque Teachers refer to that as the “everybody’s doing it” excuse.
Stay after class, to explain how those inquisitions too weren’t so awfully bad.
@Mick Jagger gathers no
Mosque Sadly, none of the three Abrahamic religions were started by Whites, who need
their own native religion that better fits their evolutionary biology.
@anon Torture has
never been anything out of the ordinary throughout history, when the police of the day took
you in for questioning they wouldn’t offer treats in exchange for a confession, torture
has been standard operating procedure, it was the normal, expected course of any
investigation. Why don’t people blame the governments of today for what the countries
they rule now used to do in the past?
If you can trust the History channel, there is no proof of an Iron Maiden device ever
having been used, rather, it was used as a fear inducing object having a profound
psychological impact.
@The scalpel Major
after 5 years? When, during WW2? The War Between the States? Whether you agree with his
politics, or not, being promoted to captain after 5 years in peace time is perfectly normal.
The man was an athlete in high school, graduated first in his class at West Point, was an
infantry officer then was on the Harvard Law Review before being elected to Congress. And not
as a liberal pantywaist. Give him his due, the man’s led a remarkable life.
@Rich He found that
affirmative action was not as good as lying, cheating, and stealing. I will grant that he is
pretty smart, (though I am suspicious that he is not smart enough to have graduated 1st in
his West Point class without cheating.)
Take a smart person who wisely uses lying, cheating, and stealing without any remorse as a
means to outcompete his friends and enemies alike, and you have someone who, with a little
luck and without being caught, can slither their way to the top of some competetive
hierarchies. These people are known as psychopaths, or more precisely, antisocial personality
disorders.
Do I respect psychopaths? No. They generally are purely takers, and make very few
contributions to humanity. Additionally, I would like to believe in things like truth, honor,
and justice, and no matter how “successful” these psychopaths are, they are
complete and utter failures on criteria I value. Then again, most government officials score
very low on those scales. Sadly, it almost seems that they must in order to obtain such
positions. We are governed by psychopaths.
@The scalpel What
evidence do you have that Mr Pompeo is a psychopath? Look, you don’t like the
guy’s politics, that’s okay, but why do you guys all of a sudden become Sigmund
Freud and start psychoanalyzing people you’ve never met? It’s almost impossible
to get through West Point cheating, lying or stealing. If anyone sees you doing anything even
slightly dishonorable, they’ll rat you out faster than a Kapo would run to a German
guard if he saw someone doing something wrong. The guy is obviously a very intelligent and
hard working man who’s looked out at the world and drawn different conclusions than
you. Doesn’t make him “evil” or a “psychopath”. Just makes him
a powerful guy you don’t agree with.
am suspicious that he is not smart enough to have graduated 1st in his West Point class
without cheating.
Maybe not cheating, per se, but at least picking his (academic) battles.
In my experience, it is frequently the case (though not always) that those who major in
“management” are those who cannot hack it in a technical discipline, or choose
not to work quite that hard.
Evidently Harvard Law places great importance on undergraduate GPA.
Speculation:
An outstanding GPA in a soft major might carry more weight at Harvard than a lower GPA
in a more demanding field. I emphasize this is speculation, as I do not actually know.
I do know that I scored 786 out of 800 on LSAT in 1970 and was not admitted to
Harvard Law. My undergraduate grades at a small technical school farther down the Charles
were only average among my peers.
All of the world’s religions can be associated with killings. They are either deeds of
evil individuals, policy wrongs that do not involve direct murder, self defense or the
defense of an attacked nation. Political policy can be rendered unto Cesar, while murder is
accurately blamed on the individuals who do it. Mass murder is particularly evil, spawning
military action that can affect innocents in other nations when it gets as heinous as the
murdering of 3,000 innocent office workers on 9/11 by Muslims.
Sure, Christians have done some heinous & barbaric things over the centuries. After
making a big deal of religion, Henry the Eighth beheaded some of his wives.
But when we get past what happened 500 years ago, we see a succession of evil mass murders
committed in the recent past by non-Christian religious zealots, shouting Allah Akbar: the
concert and nightclub massacres in France, England and America; the mass shooting of office
workers on the American West Coast; the mass shootings & random mass stabbings in
American Midwestern malls and in England; the Christmas market massacre in Germany; the mass
murder of military personnel in office settings in the American South & the Midwest; the
mass murder in Belgium; the bombing of a New England sporting event; the truck-ramming mass
murders in France, Sweden and Canada; the mass murder of churchgoers in Sri Lanka, etc., etc,
etc.
World wars have been started over only one incident, with much less extensive losses of
life.
In some centuries, the beheading and stabbing by radical Islamic terrorists of two
innocent, Danish girls, hiking in Morocco, or the beheading of an 85-year-old priest in the
middle of mass might have provoked military action.
The murderers who did all of those evil deeds (and others) in the last few years knew that
they were taking the chance of a military response that might hurt innocent people in the
non-Christian countries that they purport to care about, and yet, they still did it, showing
that they regarded potential casualties in Muslim lands as collateral damage.
The cause was the only thing that counted to them, not the people, even when the people
were fellow Muslims.
@Rich No they use to
rat you out, but like all things that are subject to change they have to,now it wasen’t
so long ago that they had the very large cheating affair at west point,and to put it bluntly
the man is a lying,cheating,stealing(his words when he worked for the C.I.A.) whore that
would do anything to further his cause of hurrying along the rapture, that he and Pence and
Bolton dream about.!!!
@bluedog Do you guys
really think men who have risen to the heights Pompeo, Pence, and Bolton have, aren’t
realists? Don’t you think that if they wanted to be ministers, they’d have
followed a different path? I can’t read other people’s minds, but I sincerely
doubt any of the three you mentioned is trying to bring about the “rapture”.
That’s just silly. They simply see Israel as a close ally and some of the Islamic
nations as enemies as well as seeing various other states as friends or enemies. You have
your opinion on how the world should be run, I have mine and they have theirs, that’s
just the way it.
You haven’t figured out yet that the more you are immune to reality, the better your
chances in DC…?
Tell me one single thing that Pompeo or Pence has ever said or done that is even remotely
connected to reality…
Trump is capable of spurts of realism, I’m convinced of that…but those
impulses are quickly blocked and checked by the likes of Pompeo and Pence…
Look at the North Korea debacle…it was Porker Pompeo that torpedoed that last
summit…Trump was going to remove him from the DPRK file, but Porker announces to the
world that he ‘can’t’ be sidelined…directly contradicting the
POTUS…how fucking ‘realistic’ is that…?
So once again the latest Korea initiative is set to sink, despite a president who is a
realist…problem is he’s surrounded by complete fantasists like
Pompeo…
@Rich “What
evidence do you have that Mr Pompeo is a psychopath?”
Well, I have his behavior, which, owing to the fact that he is a public figure is, well,
public knowledge. For one, he brags about his ability to lie,cheat, and steal. For two, he
does those things without remorse.
@turtle You are
correct. I was at West Point the same time as Plumpeo. In those days, there were 2 academic
divisions MSE and BSL which stood for Math, Science, and Engineering and Behavioral Sciences
and Leadership aka Bullshit and Lies. (Seriously that’s what we called it). For MSE
guys like me, when we had to take a BSL course like management, it was usually a breather and
a relatively easy “A” versus our MSE courses, so you might have a point there.
Do you know the man personally?
I do not know size of class at West Point.
Bullshit and Lies. (Seriously that’s what we called it)
Sounds appropriate to me. In my opinion, Benjamin Nutandyahoo is another “piece of work” in the same
mold .
Born in 1949 SB (Course IV – Architecture) MIT 1975 SM (Course XV – Management) 1976 Both IV & XV would be considered “soft” majors compared to School of Science
or School of Engineering. Just smart enough to think he can BS the rest of the world.
Lives by making a career of deceit.
At least one known alias.
No surprise he and Pompous-e-o are best buds.
turtle Born 1949 SB MIT 1970 (School of Science)* Graduated in June, turned 21 in September Junior author of one published scientific paper for undergraduate work.
*I would state my Course #, but prefer to retain a degree of anonymity on this site.
There are only a few possibilities, all of which are tougher than Architecture or the Sloan
School.
Sloanies actually had “coat and tie practice,” in which they were required to
play “dress up” and carry a briefcase to class on certain days. Most of the rest
of us thought that was rather silly.
@The scalpel If
that’s what you’re going by, every single national leader throughout history is a
psychopath. And maybe that’s true, but who cares? The world is what it is and we have
to deal with its realities. You may be a pacifist, another may believe the Israelis are the
problem, Pompeo and his fellows disagree with you. I don’t think that makes them any
“crazier” than anyone else. And I have to give the man his due, he has done very
well for himself.
@G. Poulin
It’s long to overdue to expose this fraud-in-Jesus.
If Vatican excommunicates Tony Blair, the profiteer and mega-war criminal, and similar
“Christian” arch-enemies of humanity, then your irritation would be vindicated.
IF .
"... If Maduro doesn't have iron-clad intelligence, then the Russians better provide significant help in this regard, because I sense heavy black ops (CIA) in the works. ..."
Hope everyone saw Blitzer's interview with Pompeo! Pompeo stated that Maduro was getting
ready to leave for Cuba; as in FLEE!, and his plane was on the tarmac and Pompeo claimed THE
RUSSIANS TALKED HIM OUT OF IT! When asked whether the U.S. could guarantee Maduro safe
passage to Cuba; Pompeo EQUIVOCATED! This is CRAZY.
Bolton also answered questions from the press earlier and lies were coming out of both
sides of his mouth. Both Pompeo and Bolton refused to answer questions on details relating to U.S. involvement
at this time but there were veiled threats all over the place.
If Maduro doesn't have iron-clad intelligence, then the Russians better provide
significant help in this regard, because I sense heavy black ops (CIA) in the works.
The only similarity of this chapuza coup with "Bay of Pigs" event, is in the quality
of organizers, orchestrators and perpetrators of this new intend on coup in Venezuela,
outright fascist pigs...
Some out there, of course, are excited, since they have felt nostalgias from their times
at "Assault Brigades" and "Hunters Battalions".... Even though they try sometimes to disguise themselves as democrats and constitutionalists, it
is in these times when they show all the way their real colors.
To talk about alleged repressions by socialist governments from the US, when they are
currently oppressing every nation and peoples in the world who do not pledge to their
interests, is not like calling the kettle black, but worst, and exercise of projection of
Olympic size.
Are we seeing the end of Pompeo and Bolton approaching after the humiliating failure of the latest coup d'état? How long can
Trump endure looking like à fool with these two incompetent advisors.
Pompeo and Bolton have blown up the North Korea dialog initiated by Trump? With the Venezuela circus, Trump will probably terminate
their services .
"What absolute joy it is to picture the faces of the Three Stooges when they realized they had been snookered."
Life imitates art: Similar to the two comedians who snookered Abrams and then Macron.
Ha ha ha. The vanity of these marks is so predictable that a pair of comedians can take them in easily and get them to divulge
state secrets (there won't be a military invatins of Ven) on the phone! Same dynamic with Bolton & cie is pretty easy to imagine.
The guy is so full of himself and clueless---that kind of fool is easily taken in.
B, I fully agree with you that Guaido, and Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, etc., got snookered.
This, however, makes the situation all the more dangerous. People like these don't take public humiliation very well. Added
to the frustration of not being able to act at will in their own hemisphere, they are likely to be beside themselves with fury.
Perhaps this is why Trump struck out at Cuba with threats of a total blockade.
They will not give up on Venezuela, and given their level of frustration and humiliation, their next actions could be both
irrational and dangerous.
Make no mistake, Russia's move to start handing out passports to Donetsk and Luhansk inhabitants is intimately linked to events
in Venezuela. And the fate of Ukraine rests on whether the US undertakes direct action vs Caracas or not. The moment Bolton justified
possible invasion by the duty to protect US citizens in Venezuela was also the moment Moscow made the final decision to create
similar pretext for the dismantling of the Ukraine. Russians had already proven their ability to take quick advantage of American
moves against its allies by taking symmetrical action against vulnerable vassals of Washington. Kosovo was reciprocated by Abkhazia
and South Ossetia. Takeover of Kiev - by severing of Crimea and Donbass. Invasion of Venezuela will inevitably result in Ukraine
losing all of Black Sea coast and becoming completely unviable. And unlike US Special Forces, Russian troops will actually be
greeted with flowers and genuine popular support in Kherson and Odessa.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton have vowed to
strangle Iran and cut off all oil exports. They claim it's because of Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons and missiles and its support for terrorism. In a recent speech at Texas A&M
University he finally told the truth about the CIA and the neocons - they lie and cheat and
steal. So should we believe him now?
April 12, 2019 Back in April 2017, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo
delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In this speech,
he made some very pointed comments about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange that provide us with a
glimpse into the mindset that currently inhabits the Department of State in particular and
Washington as a whole and why the events of April 11th, 2019 occurred.
Here are some key quotes from the rather lengthy speech which looked at America's intelligence
community. Early in the speech, he makes this comment:
" As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence
documents posted online. In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the
authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures. But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be
ignored.There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements
of CIA and of the broader Intelligence Community. And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these
voices -- ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy -- gain a gravity they do not
deserve." (my bolds)
It is important to note that Mr. Pompeo will not comment on the authenticity of documents that
are disclosed by whistleblowers but that, in the next breath, he states that these documents
are part of a false narrative that demean and distort the work of America's intelligence
community.
He goes on to note that the CIA does admit to making mistakes and that it is accountable to the
"free and open society that they help to defend" and that the CIA is willing to make its
mistakes public to a degree that other nations cannot match.`
Here's what he has to say about WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange:
" And that is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like
WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling. Because while we do our best to quietly
collect information on those who pose very real threats to our country, individuals such as
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves.
As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage
they cause to national security. WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence
service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain
intelligence.It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret
information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from
anti-democratic countries and organizations. It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile
intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this
year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence -- the GRU --
had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber
operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia's
primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. Now, for those of you who read the editorial page of the Washington Post -- and I have a
feeling that many of you in this room do -- yesterday you would have seen a piece of sophistry
penned by Mr. Assange. You would have read a convoluted mass of words wherein Assange compared
himself to Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of
legitimate news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. One can only
imagine the absurd comparisons that the original draft contained. Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of
America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows
nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a
hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America
through the early years of the Cold War. No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would
have found himself on the wrong side of history. We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes,
they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and
privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is
clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement
through the destruction of Western values. They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they
would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech
and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments
-- which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant. Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for
example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of
scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to
the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous." (my bolds)
Actually, when it comes to Russia and the "pass" that it has been given by WikiLeaks, Mr.
Pompeo could not be more wrong. On September 19, 2017, WikiLeaks published its " Spy Files Russia " documents which
provided insight into Russia's surveillance contractors. In the case of Russia, Russias
communication providers are required by law to install components for surveillance which is
provided by the FSB which are linked to the FSB, Russia's Federal Security Service. And,
perhaps we can attribute WikiLeaks ability to release information on America's intelligence
community because it is far more prone to leaks than the intelligence communities of other
nations.
Mr. Pompeo also provided his audience with a direct link between WikiLeaks and terrorism:
" As for Assange, his actions have attracted a devoted following among some of our most
determined enemies. Following a recent WikiLeaks disclosure, an al Qa'ida in the Arabian
Peninsula member posted a comment online thanking WikiLeaks for providing a means to fight
America in a way that AQAP had not previously envisioned. AQAP represents one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country and the world. It
is a group that is devoted not only to bringing down civilian passenger planes, but our way of
life as well.That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of
reprehensible." (my bold)
Here is Mr. Pompeo's three part solution to the Assange "problem": 1.) It is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called
transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers
pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an
acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons. 2.) There are steps that we have to take at home -- in fact, this is a process we've already
started. We've got to strengthen our own systems; we've got to improve internal mechanisms that
help us in our counterintelligence mission. All of us in the Intelligence Community had a
wake-up call after Snowden's treachery. Unfortunately, the threat has not abated. I can't go
into great detail, but the steps we take can't be static. Our approach to security has to be
constantly evolving. We need to be as clever and innovative as the enemies we face. They won't
relent, and neither will we. 3.) We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude
to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated
secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now."
Let's close with two brief items. First, here's what the ACLU has to
say about the arrest and potential American prosecution of Julian Assange:
Second, after Assange's arrest, Donald Trump had this to say about WikiLeaks:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5ztxcRHCHj4
" I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing and I know there is something having to
do with Julian Assange. I've been seeing what's happened with Assange and that will be a
determination I would imagine mostly by the Attorney General who is doing an excellent
job." Here's what the
President had to say about WikiLeaks during the 2016 Presidential election cycle:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/xnEoVzLKNPw
While it may have taken a few days less than two years to complete his dream of getting rid of
Julian Assange, it is abundantly clear from the CIA Director's speech that Mr. Assange's fate
was sealed once Mike Pompeo had direct access Washington's power brokers no matter what Donald
Trump had to say about WikiLeaks back in 2016. Fortunately for those of us on the outside that
rely on WikiLeaks to learn more about the hidden secrets of governments and the corporate
world, the group will continue to exist with or without its founder.
Posted by A Political Junkie at
8:30 AM Labels: Julian Assange ,
Mike
Pompeo , Wikileaks2
comments:
Dedicated to revealing facts that allows the public to "see" the truth is Julian
Assange, a man of integrity that is lacking in many of our politicians. They say the
"truth" hurts but it is the only way to gain wisdom to improve our world.
The Trump administration is poised to tell five nations, including allies Japan, South
Korea and Turkey, that they will no longer be exempt from U.S. sanctions if they continue to
import oil from Iran.
U.S. officials say Secretary of State Mike Pompeo plans to announce on Monday that the
administration will not renew sanctions waivers for the five countries when they expire on
May 2.
Refusing to offer new sanctions waivers is the latest sign that Trump is once again giving
in to the most extreme Iran hawks. When sanctions on Iran's oil sector went into effect last
November, the administration initially granted waivers to the top importers of Iranian oil to
avoid a spike in the price of oil, but that is now coming to an end. The economic war that the
U.S. has been waging against Iran over the last year is about to expand to include some of the
world's biggest economies and some of America's leading trading partners. It is certain to
inflict more hardship on the Iranian people, and it will damage relations between the U.S. and
other major economic powers, including China and India, but it will have no discernible effect
on the Iranian government's behavior and policies. India, China, and Turkey are practically
guaranteed to ignore U.S. demands that they eliminate all Iranian oil imports.
The decision to end waivers has implications for world oil markets, which have been
eagerly anticipating President Trump's decision on whether to extend waivers. The officials
said market disruption should be minimal for two reasons: supply is now greater than demand
and Pompeo is also set to announce offsets through commitments from other suppliers such as
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Trump spoke about the issue Thursday with the
UAE's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan.
Between the administration's Venezuela and Iran oil sanctions and increased instability in
Libya (also supported by the Trump administration), oil prices are nonetheless likely to rise.
Even if they don't, Trump's Iran obsession is causing significant economic dislocation for no
good reason as part of a regime change policy that can't and won't succeed. It cannot be
emphasized enough that the reimposition of sanctions on Iran is completely unwarranted and
represents a betrayal of previous U.S. commitments to Iran and our allies under the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action. The decision to refuse any new sanctions waivers is a clear sign
that the most fanatical members of the Trump administration have prevailed in internal debates
and U.S. Iran policy is held hostage to their whims.
Maybe Trump will reap the benefits of this if oil prices go up a lot and it torpedos his
reelection in 2020.
One thing I'm really not clear on how are these proposed sanctions against third parties
(e.g. Japan, etc etc) not a violation of trade agreements? Are there escape clauses in those
agreements that allow the US to do these things, or is it merely that these other countries
are (usually) not willing to rely on the trade agreements' protections because, at the end of
the day, it would mean a trade war with the US, which they're not willing to countenance?
Iran policy ??? What about foreign policy in general ?? Interventionism is NOT what Americans
want, or can afford! No more lives & limbs (and dollars) for foreign countries!!
"Between the administration's Venezuela and Iran oil sanctions and increased instability
in Libya (also supported by the Trump administration), oil prices are nonetheless likely to
rise. Even if they don't, Trump's Iran obsession is causing significant economic dislocation
for no good reason "
But there is a good reason. Forcing up oil prices is a shot in the arm for the Saudi
economy. Remember "Israel first, and Saudi Arabia second". That formula explains most of
Trump's foreign policy, the rest being a jumble of random impulses and the consequences of
infighting among his advisors.
Gas is already $3.20 in the Chicago suburbs, and we are not into the summer driving season
yet. Overseas – India is going to the poll. India imports most of its oil, and Iran is
a major supplier. Yes, the Saudis have been trying to get India to switch over to more Saudi
imports – but it would look like "strong" Modi is giving in to Trump and MBS.
We are going to sanction China for buying Iranian oil? Does anyone seriously think they are
going to submit to that gracefully? Japan and Korea might, they are much smaller and stuck
with us. But China?
And I seriously doubt that sanctioning India for buying Iranian oil will advance our
strategic alliance with them, either.
And the neocon-ization of the Trump administration continues.
While The Donald is packing away Big Macs and Diet Cokes, his neocon secretary of state is
appointing likeminded warmongers.
Ortagus has been a fixture of the GOP foreign policy establishment for more than a decade.
She has served as a press officer at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a
financial intelligence officer at the Treasury Department and an intelligence officer in the
US Naval Reserve. She has also worked with several political campaigns, as well as a
political action committee, and has experience working on Wall Street and in foreign policy
consulting.
In addition to working with spooks and a federal agency that undermines elections
and foments coups in foreign lands, Ortagus "served on the boards" at the Institute for the
Study of War (ISW), a coven of warmongers run by Kimberly Kagan, wife of notorious neocon
Frederick Kagan.
ISW is funded by the death merchants -- Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp, and others --
and it pushes the concept of the indispensable nation engaged in forever war around the world,
a conflict promoted in the name of "democracy," which is code for mass murder campaigns waged
by the financial elite in its quest for total domination and theft of everything valuable on
planet Earth.
Naturally, some folks over on the so-called "New Right" support the appointment of an ardent
neocon -- a former pretty face from Fox News -- at the State Department, thus demonstrating
they are little different than establishment Republicans, or for that matter Democrats.
China has come out swinging after Mike Pompeo's three-day Latin
America tour in which the Secretary of State
publicly called out China for spreading "disorder" in Latin America alongside Russia.
Pompeo identified the two countries, both of which have over the past two months condemned US
efforts toward regime change in Venezuela, of backing failing investment projects that only
fuel corruption and undermine democracy, especially in Venezuela.
China's ambassador to Chile, Xu Bu, quickly lashed out in response to America's top diplomat
blaming China for Latin America's economic woes which first came last Friday while standing
alongside Chilean President Sebastian Pinera. Ambassador Xu told the Chilean
newspaper La Tercera : "Mr Pompeo has lost his mind."
Pompeo had asserted during his tour that Chinese investment and economic intervention in
Venezuela, now facing financial and infrastructural collapse amidst political turmoil, had
"helped destroy" the country and said Latin American leaders must therefore see who their "true
friend" is.
"China's bankrolling of the Maduro regime helped precipitate and prolong the crisis in that
country," Pompeo had stated , and further
described Maduro as "a power-hungry tyrant who has brought ruin to his country and to his
people".
"I think there's a lesson to be learned for all of us: China and others are being
hypocritical calling for non-intervention in Venezuela's affairs. Their own financial
interventions have helped destroy that country," Pompeo added.
China is Venezuela's biggest foreign creditor has provided up to $62bn in loans since 2007,
according to estimates.
The Chinese foreign ministry didn't hold back in its response: "For some time, some US
politicians have been carrying the same version, the same script of slandering China all over
the world , and fanning the flames and sowing discord everywhere," Ministry spokesman Lu Kang
said in a
Monday statement .
"The words and deeds are despicable. But lies are lies, even if you say it a thousand times,
they are still lies. Mr Pompeo, you can stop, " the spokesman said.
Hinting at Washington's Cold War era record of overthrowing governments in Latin America --
a longstanding tradition that can be traced all the way back to the Cold War, the statement
added: "The Latin American countries have good judgment about who is their true friend and who
is false, and who is breaking rules and making trouble," Lu said.
The Chinese Ambassador to Chile's remarks had also remotely invoked a continued Monroe
Doctrine mentality on the part of US officials, saying "Pompeo's body has entered the 21st
century but his mind remains in the 20th century, full of thoughts about hegemony and the cold
war ," Amb. Xu told La Tercera .
In addition to being the Maduro government's single largest creditor, China has recently
offered to help Venezuela with its failing power grid, after a series of devastating mass
outages over the past month has resulted in "medieval" conditions amidst an already collapsing
infrastructure. This as Pompeo and Bolton came close to positively celebrating the mass outages
as proof of the ineptness of the Maduro regime.
Beijing also recently denied it has deployed troops to Venezuela after media reports a week
ago cited online photos which appeared to show a Chinese military transport plane deployed to
Caracas.
Given how boldly and directly Chinese officials' Monday statements were, it appears
Beijing's patience with Pompeo is running thin, to the point of giving up on a positive avenue
with the White House, also amidst a broader trade war. It appears the proverbial gloves are
coming off.
China's ambassador Xu Bu is certainly correct that "Mr Pompeo has lost his mind" like the
rest of US supremacist elites. Another good example is the demented Nikki Haley. Then there
is Bolton that is in a class of his own.
Trump administration still is playing old color revolution game: accusing somebody of corruption is the best way to endure the regime
change.
Unfortunately for them the game is well known now, and as such is less effective.
It might succeed this time though, as Venezuela is their backyard, so to speak. But after Libya there will be a fight and it it
will cost the USA. .
Looks like they are now trying to bribe China.
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo and Piñera also generally discussed the U.S.-China trade war and Beijing's "Belt and Road" initiative, with Pompeo suggesting he was optimistic about solving the tariff war with China. But the focus remained finding a US-desired outcome to the Venezuela crisis. ..."
Speaking Friday in Chile upon the start of his three-day South American tour, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called out China
and Russia for spreading "disorder" in Latin America through failing investment projects that only fuel corruption and undermine
democracy , especially in places like Venezuela.
According to
Bloomberg , Pompeo specifically listed a failing dam project in Ecuador, police advisory programs in Nicaragua, and Chinese loans
to the Maduro government, which goes further back to Chavez.
Pompeo asserted Chinese loans in Latin America "often injects corrosive capital into the economic bloodstream, giving life to
corruption, and eroding good governance." Both Beijing and Moscow have ultimately spread their economic tentacles into the region
to "spread disorder," he added.
In what appears an effort to sustain momentum toward pressuring regime change in Caracas, America's highest diplomat met Chilean
President Sebastian Pinera earlier Friday, and will hit Paraguay, Peru next, and finally on Sunday will travel to a Colombian town
on the border with Venezuela.
Pompeo and Piñera also generally discussed the U.S.-China trade war and Beijing's "Belt and Road" initiative, with Pompeo
suggesting he was optimistic about solving the tariff war with China. But the focus remained finding a US-desired outcome to the
Venezuela crisis.
As part of the broader pressure campaign on Maduro, Pompeo said the U.S. has revoked visas for 718 people and sanctioned over
150 individuals and entities. On Friday, the U.S. sanctioned four companies it says transport much of the 50,000 barrels of oil
that Venezuela provides to Cuba each day.
"Nearly a quarter million people were killed between 1962 and 1996 in Guatemala, 93 percent at the hands of pro-government forces.
The UN-backed Commission for Historical Clarification classified the massacre of Mayan Indians, treated by the military as a potential
constituency for guerrillas, as genocide, including the destruction of up to 90 percent of the Ixil-Mayan towns and the bombing
of those fleeing. In El Salvador, 988 of the 75,000 killed between 1980 and 1992 -- also overwhelmingly by pro-government forces
-- were massacred in the Morazán Department in the "El Mozote" case, whose prosecution is at risk.
Most of the victims were children, who were shot down, burned and raped en masse or hung upside down and bled from their throats.
Refuting claims by defendants that victims were combatants, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team has stated: "We only found
marbles, toys, coins, cooking utensils, sandals and flip-flops next to their bodies." It was the largest single documented massacre
in modern Latin American history.
What the ruling class wants to be "forgotten" is the fact that their only response to the crisis of global capitalism is dictatorship,
war and barbarism."
There are always pick-and-shovel men like Abrams around to do the wet work – for their part, because they like it, and are contemptuous
of those who shrink from violence. But they are singularly useful for the reigning government, as well, since it has to sing soothing
songs of respect for human rights and pretend to view violence as repugnant and unnecessary. It would be, if the government had
forever to achieve its aims. But it usually has to bank on putting America in the place it wants it to be in four years. Sometimes
that means a bunch of people have to be eliminated, or else you run out of time.
People like Elliott Abrams are seldom kept around after the goals are won, though – too much danger they might develop loose
lips. So, often, something 'happens' to them. In this case, it couldn't 'happen' to a righter guy.
Vesti calls out Pompeo on lying about Russia invading Ukraine [Video]
Secretary Pompeo displayed either stunning ignorance or a mass-attack of propaganda about
what must be the most invisible war in history.
After the 2014 Maidan revolution and the subsequent secessions of
Lugansk and Donetsk in Ukraine, and after the rejoining of Crimea with its original nation of
Russia, the Western media went on a campaign to prove the Russia is (/ was / was about to / had
already / might / was thinking about / was planning to etc.) invade Ukraine. For the next year
or so, about every two weeks, internet news sources like Yahoo! News showed viewers pictures of
tanks, box trucks and convoys to "prove" that the invasion was underway (or any of the other
statuses confirming the possibilities above stated.) This information was doubtless provided to
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.
Apparently, Secretary Pompeo believed this ruse, or is being paid to believe this ruse
because in a speech recently,
he talked about it as fact:
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in
eastern Ukraine an attempt to gain access to Ukraine's oil and gas reserves. He stated this
at IHS Markit's CERAWeek conference in Houston, the USA,
Reuters reports.
Pompeo urged the oil industry to work with the Trump administration to promote U.S.
foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe, and to punish what he called "bad
actors" on the world stage.
The United States has imposed harsh sanctions in the past several months on two major
world oil producers, Venezuela and Iran.
Pompeo said the U.S. oil-and-gas export boom had given the United States the ability to
meet energy demand once satisfied by its geopolitical rivals.
"We don't want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the Nord Stream 2
project, any more than we ourselves want to be dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies," Pompeo
said, referring to a
natural gas pipeline expansion from Russia to Central Europe .
Pompeo called Russia's invasion of Ukraine an attempt to gain access to the country's oil
and gas reserves.
Although the state-run news agency Vesti News often comes under criticism for rather
reckless, or at least, extremely sarcastic propaganda at times, here they rightly nailed Mr.
Pompeo's lies to the wall and billboarded it on their program:
The news anchors even made a wisecrack about one of the political figures, Konstantin
Zatulin saying as a joke that Russia plans to invade the United States to get its oil. They
further noted that Secretary Pompeo is uneducated about the region and situation, but they
offered him the chance to come to Russia and learn the correct information about what is going
on.
However, the oil and gas side of the anti-Russian propaganda operation by the US is
significant. The US wishes for Europe to buy gas from American suppliers, even though this is
woefully inconvenient and expensive when Russia is literally at Europe's doorstep with easy
supplies. However, the Cold War Party in the United States, which still has a significant hold
on US policy making categorizes the sale of Russia gas to powers like NATO ally Germany as a
"threat" to European security.
It is interesting that Angela Merkel herself does not hold this line of thinking. It is also
interesting and worthy of note, that this is not the only NATO member that is dealing more and
more with Russia in terms of business. It underscores the loss of purpose that the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization suffers now since there is no Soviet Union to fight.
However, the US remains undaunted. If there is no enemy to fight, the Americans feel that
they must create one, and Russia has been the main scapegoat for American power ambitions. More
than ever now, this tactic appears to be the one in use for determining the US stance towards
other powers in the world.
Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon! Continue
Reading
@Asagirian I've read that
she is still in line to primary Trump. Surely someone will, so it might as well be a neocon
Israel-first Sikh woman who is even more ignorant and psychotic that our current
Tweeter-in-Chief. If she wins, she can even keep Pompeo and Bolton to finish off Iran and
start WWIII.
Incredible. US government cooks up lies to invade and wreck Iraq, destroy Libya, and subvert
Syria. It pulled off a coup in Ukraine with Neo-Nazis. US and its allies Saudis and Israel
gave aid, direct and indirect, to ISIS and Al-Qaida to bring down Assad or turn Syria upside
down.
But, scum like Pompeo puts forth hard-line stance against terrorists. What a bunch of vile
phonies and hypocrites.
"... "Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to know that anytime we engage in a country that we think about what our actions could be and how we believe our values are being furthered," Omar said. ..."
"... After again downplaying her question, Abrams said "the entire thrust of American policy in Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their country." ..."
As assistant secretary of state during the Reagan administration, Abrams was involved in a
secret arms deal in which the U.S. sought to trade missiles and other weapons to Iran and use
the funds to support right-wing paramilitaries known as the "contras," who were seeking to
topple a leftist government in Nicaragua. In a 1991 plea agreement with an independent
commission tasked with probing the scandal -- which became known as the Iran-Contra affair --
Abrams admitted to lying to members of Congress about the clandestine deal. In 1992, he and
other Reagan administration officials embroiled in the scandal were pardoned by former
President George H. W. Bush.
Omar also pressed Abrams about his role in shaping an interventionist American foreign
policy in other Latin American countries during his first stints at the State Department.
During the Cold War, the U.S. supported various violent coups in Latin America, including some
against democratically-elected governments.
The freshman Democrat asked Abrams about a remark he made in 1993, when he called the Reagan
administration's record in El Salvador a "fabulous achievement." Between 1979 and 1992, the
U.S. backed a right-wing military government in El Salvador during a civil war against leftist
guerrillas that resulted in the deaths of more than 75,000 people, according to the Center for Justice and
Accountability , an international human rights group.
Omar specifically cited the massacre of hundreds of civilians by the American-trained El
Salvadoran army at the El Mazote village in 1981.
"Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a 'fabulous achievement' that happened under our
watch," she asked.
"That is a ridiculous question," Abrams responded, again accusing Omar of crafting a
"personal attack."
Omar continued her questioning, asking Abrams if he would be in favor of the U.S. supporting
armed groups in Venezuela that participate in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide
if he believed it would serve America's interests. Abrams refused to answer the specific
question, saying it was not a "real" question.
"Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because
American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to
know that anytime we engage in a country that we think about what our actions could be and how
we believe our values are being furthered," Omar said.
But Maduro and other leftist leaders in the region, including in Bolivia and Cuba, have
accused the American government of trying to stage a coup in Venezuela. Standing alongside
diplomats from Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran, Venezuela's foreign
minister Jorge Arreaza told CBS News' Pamela Falk Thursday that Maduro's government has formed
a coalition to oppose interference in his country's affairs.
After again downplaying her question, Abrams said "the entire thrust of American policy in
Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their
country."
In her final question, Omar asked Abrams whether American foreign policy prioritized
upholding human rights and protecting people against genocide.
"That is always the position of the United States," he replied.
BRAVO OMAR ..2 nd time in my life I have seen balls in congress.
Venezuela Envoy Elliott Abrams Lose His Cool During Tense Exchange With Rep. Ilhan
Omar
Watch the video at link
"Mr. Abrams, in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from
Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later
pardoned by president George H.W. Bush," began Omar. "I fail to understand why members of
this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be
truthful."
"If I could respond to that " interjected Abrams.
"It was not a question," shot back Omar.
After a brief exchange in which Abrams protested "It was not right!" Omar cut Abrams off,
saying "Thank you for your participation."
It looks like a specialist on illegal transferee of weapons is needed to make the color revolution a success...
Notable quotes:
"... Elliott Abrams got a new high level job last month, Special Envoy on Venezuela. Within weeks, the United States recognized a new President of Venezuela while the elected Venezuelan President is still in office. Chatter and rumor from the White House suggests that military intervention is possible. The "new" recognized-by- the-US-President of Venezuela is a veteran of color revolution type regime change, groomed for service with the help of the snakelike National Endowment for Democracy (NED). ..."
It's a sad fact that the full and unconditional
pardon given by President George H.W. Bush to Elliott Abrams (a member of the second
generation neo-conservative royalty by way of marriage to the daughter of neo-con co-creator,
Midge Decter), protected him from disbarment and possible prison. Abrams, who pled guilty to
the crime of lying to Congress in the investigation of the Iran-Contra, embraced the plea
option reportedly in order to avoid heavier charges from the office of then independent
counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, prosecutor in the Iran-Contra cases. Bush is gone, Walsh is gone,
but Mr. Bush's Attorney General William Barr is – surprise – now Attorney General
of the United States.
What that portends for future regime change adventures remains to be seen, but the
historical record is ominous.
In 1992, when Bush issued the Iran-Contra pardons on the eve of his leaving office after
losing reelection to President Bill Clinton, William Barr fully supported the pardons.
Presidential pardons are, after all, Constitutional. But, Lawrence Walsh said at the time,
reported NPR, "It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious
crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences."
Now the Iran-Contra era neo-cons and the Dick Cheney/Iraq Invasion 2003 era neo-cons are
marching back into the institution of the Presidency.
Elliott Abrams got a new high level job last month, Special Envoy on Venezuela. Within
weeks, the United States recognized a new President of Venezuela while the elected Venezuelan
President is still in office. Chatter and rumor from the White House suggests that military
intervention is possible. The "new" recognized-by- the-US-President of Venezuela is a veteran
of color revolution type regime change, groomed for service with the help of the snakelike
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Regime change, putting in questionable, if not nefarious new leaders, seems to be Abrams'
delight: Nicaragua, Iraq while a government official. Many others in his dreams.
In 1986, even before the Iran-Contra debacle was revealed, as Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs, Elliott Abrams told Congress that Nicaraguan "Contras" involved in
drug running didn't have the okay from Contra leaders. It was just underlings. This, while
Abrams and company were busy doing end-runs around the Boland Amendment and other Congressional
actions that barred military supplies to the Contras. Even Khomeini's Iran was not off limits
in getting money for the Nicaraguan fight.
In another time and place, i.e., Saudi Arabia, present day, where regime change in Syria was
a high priority, we've heard excuses similar to those made by Elliott Abrams about the Contras,
about the responsibility for the killing and butchering of the corpse of Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, and about the financing and arming of ISIS and Al Nusra terrorists by Saudi Arabia
in Syria. Deja vu.
With more neo-cons in the Administration, the trajectory is more wasted blood and
treasure.
This is one of the things I find so disingenuous about the Jews. On the one hand, they
claim they are always the victims. On the other, they claim they are superior intellectually.
They are a money cult and they promote one another shamelessly. And yet they have the balls
to talk about white privilege. Talk about a red herring. My God.
"... The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. ..."
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her
latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the
democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York
rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to
overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report
it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and
has signed with a Speakers agency to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking
engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the
private sector after leaving the U.N. According to a public financial disclosure report based
on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would pay down more than
$1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years
Jason Raimondo's hopes that the tide slowly was turning against the War
Party with Trump's appointment of Tillerson are dashed for good with the appointments of
Abrams, Bolton and Pompeo. The thugs for Wall Street have taken DC. Trump might as well go
home. Raimondo wrote of Abrams in 2017 in "The End of Globalism":
Excerpt:
Oh yes, the times they are a changin', as Bob Dylan once put it, and
here's the evidence :
"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has ordered his department to redefine its mission and
issue a new statement of purpose to the world. The draft statements under review right now are
similar to the old mission statement, except for one thing – any mention of promoting
democracy is being eliminated."
All the usual suspects are in a tizzy .
Elliott Abrams , he of
Contra-gate fame , and one of the purest of
the neoconservative ideologues , is cited in the
Washington Post piece as being quite unhappy: "The only significant difference is the
deletion of justice and democracy. We used to want a just and democratic word, and now
apparently we don't."
Abrams' contribution to a just and democratic world is
well-known : supporting a
military dictatorship in El Salvador during the 1980s that slaughtered thousand s, and then
testifying before Congress that massive human rights violations by the US-supported regime were
Communist "propaganda." US policy, of which he was one of the principal architects, led to the
lawlessness that now plagues that country, which has a higher murder rate than Iraq: in Abrams'
view, the Reagan policy of supporting a military dictatorship was "a fabulous achievement." The
same murderous policy was pursued in
Nicaragua while Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs, as the US tried to overthrow a democratically elected government and provoked a civil
war that led to the death of many thousands . In
Honduras
and Guatemala
, Abrams was instrumental in covering up heinous atrocities committed by US-supported
regimes.
And, now, Venezuela. The economic hit man has arrived.
" 'I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I
spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light
to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." --
Smedley Butler
Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago (Edited)
...The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some
cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.
napper, 4 hours ago (Edited)
He will, if he gets a second term!!!
Abrams' appointment is no accident or mistake. By now even the most casual (but intelligent) observer should have seen
through Donald Trump's contemptuous disregard for legal institutions and a criminal propensity for lawlessness.
Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago(Edited)
And most American sheeple are dumb as a pile of rocks. The few good people left are largely powerless and have to deal
with so much BS in all directions. I hope they will get through the coming implosion with their sanity intact.
Glad I left that shithole. I saw it coming. What's coming won't be pretty.
CananTheConrearian1, 3 hours ago
OK, Great Mind, name a populace that is as smart as Americans. Europeans? Chinese? We're glad you left, ********.
Who is next? Paul
Wolfowitz now would be the most logical choice. Id the invasion of Venezuela decided already,
like Iraq war under Bush II.
That means that Rump can say goodbye to independents who votes for him because of his
anti-foreign wars noises during previous election campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle. Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra. ..."
"... Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign governments both by covert action and outright military invasion. ..."
"... At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. ..."
"... Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly would advance U.S. interests. ..."
"... Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation? ..."
"... Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no -- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot. ..."
"... If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg, David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would be a necessary condition. ..."
"... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that. ..."
On Friday, following the dramatic arrest of a prominent Trump supporter on charges of lying
to Congress, President Trump gave one of the nation's most sensitive national security and
diplomatic posts to another controversial figure who already had been convicted of lying to
Congress.
Has the NeverTrump Republican echo chamber gone berserk over this irresponsible
appointment?
Have Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio taken to the Senate floor to speak out against the
president's defiance of honesty in government? Have they demanded hearings and a confirmation
vote?
Has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that Trump's action is so egregious it might call for
an article of impeachment?
Not at all. Turns out, the appointee is one of the president's worst enemies, a man
forcefully opposed to almost all of Trump's policies and campaign promises, a man who
repeatedly has said Trump is morally unfit for his office. He is Elliott Abrams, the
71-year-old éminence grise of the NeverTrump movement.
Abrams is the pre-eminent prophet and practitioner of hyper-interventionist approaches to
destabilize or overthrow governments - of foes and friends alike - that do not pass his
democracy-is-the-end-all-and-be-all litmus test. His closest friends and associates, from whom
his political positions are indistinguishable, include some of President Trump's most rabid
enemies, false-flag "conservatives" Bill Kristol and Max Boot.
Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for
lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle.
Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of
impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned
by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra.
After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly
elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where
Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects
of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries
whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign
governments both by covert action and outright military invasion.
At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied
clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy
head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. Trump, who would
have had to sign off on the nomination, rejected Abrams when he learned of Abrams' background.
The truth about Abrams, while not by any means a secret,
came to Trump's attention from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul, who held a deciding vote in
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would block Abrams if he were nominated.
Abrams already knew then what Trump took nearly a year to discover, that Tillerson was
hopelessly unprepared to serve as the nation's chief diplomat and indeed was, as Trump
colorfully put it, "dumb as a rock." Nothing about Abrams, the NeverTrumper who believes Trump cannot govern effectively without
him, has changed since then.
Following his rejection by Trump, Abrams wrote a sour-grapes article for
Politico , disparaging the president, along with Vice President Pence and Abrams' erstwhile
patron Tillerson, for not having international human rights policies identical to Abrams' own
views.
Abrams has been outspoken against sensitive Trump international policies right up to the
moment of his surprise appointment. He is unapologetic about his role in masterminding the Iraq
war. He has opposed Trump concerning American troops in Syria and America's relationship with
Saudi Arabia. As recently as January 14, 2019, he published a withering
attack on Trump's Middle East policies and diplomacy.
As events in Venezuela last week reached a crisis with rival claimants to the nation's
presidency, Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as
special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly
would advance U.S. interests.
Immediately? An appointee to a sensitive post needs a background investigation and security
clearance. These investigations can take months. If he indeed has a valid clearance, that means
his appointment was decided long ago.
Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or
assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate
acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation?
What is Pompeo thinking? Has Pompeo read Abrams' anti-Trump articles? In particular, has he
read Abrams' January 14 anti-Trump article that mocks Pompeo with a hugely unflattering photo
of the secretary of state?
What is going on?
Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of
whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no
-- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot.
If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your
enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg,
David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams
appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would
be a necessary condition.
So far there are no signs of this.
What did Trump know about the new Abrams appointment, and when did he know it?
It's amazing seeing the holdout Trump supporters continually writhe in mental contortions
to support his every move..as I've said all along..TDS affects the sheep on both right and
left equally.
Brazen Heist II 4 minutes ago (Edited)
... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in
some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.
uhland62, 5 minutes ago
This guy is just picking up a couple more paychecks. He may think he can whip up Trump for more wars, Trump may think he
can control this guy because 'I am President and you are not'. The main thing is that the military can make more wars and
destroy more countries.
The-Post, 15 minutes ago
Trump loves those Bush criminals.
readerandthinker
Venezuelan army defectors appeal to Trump for weapons
Caracas, Venezuela (CNN)Venezuelan army defectors are calling on the Trump administration to arm them, in what they call
their quest for "freedom."
Former soldiers Carlos Guillen Martinez and Josue Hidalgo Azuaje, who live outside the country, told CNN they want US
military assistance to equip others inside the beleaguered nation. They claim to be in contact with hundreds of willing
defectors and have called on enlisted Venezuelan soldiers to revolt against the Maduro regime, through television broadcasts.
"As Venezuelan soldiers, we are making a request to the US to support us, in logistical terms, with communication,
with weapons, so we can realize Venezuelan freedom," Guillen Martinez told CNN.
"... War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme. ..."
"... Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few who run the show generation after generation. ..."
"... He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom. ..."
"... So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really mean what it really says. Scary sob ..."
"... Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job. ..."
"... When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****. ..."
"... I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo, 150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****. ..."
"... it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails. ..."
"... After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. ..."
Abrams is obviously a Bush plant from left over CIA Bushys.
Abrams lied to Congress twice about his role with the Contras. He pleaded guilty to both counts in 1991 but was pardoned
by George H.W. Bush just before the latter left office.
A decade later, while working as special Middle East adviser to President George Ws Bush, Abrams was an enthusiastic advocate
of the disastrous Iraq invasion.
Abrams was also in the Bush White House at the time of the abortive coup in 2002 against the late Venezuelan President
Hugo Chávez.
Abrams helped lead the U.S. effort to stage a coup to overturn the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, complete
with murder and torture.
War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old
Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme.
This is the precise crap people were hoping to avoid with Trump, but the left has put Trump administration in a vice by having
constant fires to put out and disyractions with FALE RUSSIAN COLLUSION
... It's a psychological ploy to wear down the President and search for legitimate excuse to gain public opinion to go against
Russia and they found it. Venezuela is a **** hole from socialism which AOL and dems are embracing now. Of course having sorry
liberal advisors like Kushner doesn't help... That is a huge mistake to have the opposition ( democrate Kushner and wife) in the
hen house with great pursasive power over an overwhelm Trump... Strategy working.
But politics as it is run mostly out of " The City of London" and old lynn Rothschild wanted puppet Hillary in ( Rothschild's
play dirty to get what they want and hold a full house of cards with the financial tools to " persuade people to their way of
thinking"... A battle us penny picker uppers must live with.... It's the only change we get.
Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few
who run the show generation after generation.
He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they
enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom.
So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton
still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really
mean what it really says. Scary sob
Abrams was convicted of lying to congress meanwhile congress lies to us all day everyday and what happens to those bastards?
They vote themselves raises and sit on their *** all day taking bribes from their paymasters and writing laws and regulations
to control their chattel. Yes I hate politicians because they're ******* criminals and all of them and the useless bureaucrats
that infest that cesspool in D.C should be out of work permanently.
Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield
power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job.
When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company
he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who
the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****.
I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo,
150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****.
You're excused...it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in
after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails.
Seriously though, it's interesting that ZH has said nothing about the big corruption scandal going on now in Brasil. The guy
who won on platform of anti-corruption has been exposed within a month of taking office, surprise...surprise, as part of one of
the worst. Talk is vp taking over with the backing of the military. "soft-hard" coup you could say.
I too, got very angry about the exact things you mention. However, I perspective is something that keeps me grounded. Remember
what was happening in 2016, and what the options were. Remember BLM, march's in like every city, and Cops getting ambushed every
few weeks?
Remember, "We came, We saw, he died", from Queen Hillary? Or how about Queen Hillary calling Putin a Thug, and saying we had
to stand up to him in Ukraine, and Syria?
dude, we all know she is part of the same ****. The ******** election is over, the plutocracy chose their puppet. Think of
it, sure Killary would have done the same, but she wouldn't have been able to get away with it and the schizoid msm would have
had a breakdown trying to sell the same ol, same ol us empire games. People don't like surprises. Repubelicans as aggressive warmongers
doesnt surprise. Sadly they think they cant do anything about it. But they can, and not by talking **** on ZH.
See Ralph Nader's, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress for tips.
It's 10 dimensional to the fifth power chess right? Just kidding. It's a big club and you ain't in it. Trump is not going to
save you. Did you really think one guy defied the odds and overcame the voter fraud and beat Hillary? Puhleez. All by design.
You're watching a movie...
After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush
appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief.
Didn't W run on a 'bring the troops home and world leave us alone' platform in 2000?
when i think about what Trump did so far I think about that mandatory Obama care tax that I had to pay if I* didn't get Obama
care Well it's gone and that was a big deal for me cause I've got four kids that would have to pay it and that would be six thousand
out of pocket every year that's for starters with out Trump running interference in the FL house and senate elections we'd have
Obama lite new and antique Bill still that makes a huge difference in things like taxes and EPA enforcement in this state I really
think he has made the general public more aware of the Mexican invasion cause I see less and less Latinos on the jobs sites around
here He has really caused the Dems to lose it Trump did that not any other politician he has exposed election fraud he has exposed
the deep state like never before
Yes I'm a Trump supporter a thoughtful one I consider the options and will go with this till it impacts me negatively on an
economic personal level not an emotional one brought on by pundits and MSM never Trump ilk
why don't you ask me if I think he is perfect I think his wife is pretty much ok however I hate that he is from NYC and acts
like it his friends are not much to be proud of and his social skills are lacking but I think he showers regularly and has good
hygiene and moral habits except for golf but that's just me He's a bossy kind of guy and I might not get along with him He doesn't
do things country folks do and wouldn't fit in around here his hair sucks and is a narcissistic affectation for sure but i like
his foreign policy so far how am i doing think I'm being killed slowly I liked Ike but he was weak and I liked Buchanan bur preferred
Goldwater and on and on they are politicians and deserve the loyalty they give and " that's all I have to say about that"
Trump is a psychopath and he loves to hire even bigger psychopaths. Your whole admin is a swamp of sociopaths, psychopaths
and other sick deranged people.
Haigin88 ->
Tom J. Davis Clinton's Iraq
war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived
that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college;
her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton
and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think ,
Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China,
she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from
Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college;
her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton
and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for
his secretary of state nomination today.
Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports
on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:
Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public
remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the
United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other
activities in the region.
The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top
officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it
did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves.
The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and
overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.
Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't
required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced
no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA)
has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest
on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change
in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else
for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have
gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have
bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.
Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a
destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass
starvation.
"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they
aren't required to do very much"
Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.
Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep
Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just
don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us
to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid
request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."
This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some
Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many
be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen
how successful he will be.
Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million
prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the
wealth of the nation. On and on
It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore
no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do
not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for
their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your
doorstep.
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
calls on
the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:
Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of
the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about
how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the
burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having
built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it
believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems
more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty
that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations,
the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more
so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the
extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might
even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.
The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as
short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of
negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for
killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an
arms race that no one should want.
The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government
has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the
U.S.
Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and
abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no
sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for
more than thirty years.
The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with
Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an
excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a
violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that
the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological
hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The
administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has
no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous,
but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for
almost eight years.
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared.
Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that
non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous
(for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote
speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.
The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is
failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme –
sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer
an alternative way.
China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got
their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions,
which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.
The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the
Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the
International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit
should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually
is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans
accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.
The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for
America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran
complacent, so it had to go.
But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam?
SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians
from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.
Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out
more.
Trump lost control of foreign policy, when he appointed Pompeo. US voters might elect Hillary with the same effect on foreign policy
as Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel. ..."
"... Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF. ..."
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable
Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and
the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.
Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar
as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global
energy dominance.
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as
US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money
is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in
reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North.
Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it
to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF.
Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks
replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has
called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime
change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump
may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European
states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.
... ... ...
The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to
be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to
avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on
Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:
Secretary Pompeo
* @SecPompeo
Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.
C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в
The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of
war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies
created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war
tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy
good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi
coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve
international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to
blackmail the U.N. in the past.
The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be
suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's
intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for
causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially
affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe
they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly
beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of
that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of
the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for
"relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.
Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality
by his Iran working group led by Hook?
At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for
the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.
Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with
much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this
country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.
Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?
"... Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon ..."
Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary
Ann Glendon .
Pompeo the Cockroach .as it .(Mike Pompeo is an it, as is that other well known BLATARIA .Hillary Clinton) .is known to the
residents of Satan's filthy stinking reeking toilet bowl waaaaaaaaay down in putrid HELL!!!!!!!
Don't mind the split infinitive they are really quite alright .only a girly boy grammar NAZI!!! would shriek about it ..
While soon-to-be
ex-UN ambassador Nikki Haley might be the talk of the town at the moment -- from chatter she
should run
in 2020 against Donald Trump to replacing Mike
Pence on the GOP ticket all the way to
running against Pence in 2024 -- her many
faults are being glossed over. That's a big problem for someone being floated as the next
leader of the free world -- as recent history has
taught us all too tragically.
Thankfully, reality always has a way of casting doubt on such picture-perfect narratives
before they are ever fully formed. Case in point, buried in a recent
article from Harper's Magazine was the fact that Haley tried out her own amateur
hour version of what can only be described as nuclear poker: telling China's ambassador to the
UN that Trump might invade North Korea.
I had to read the article over and over to make sure I didn't miss something. But alas it
was real -- and terrifying. Such a threat, if relayed to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un,
combined with several other U.S. actions at the time -- and one that almost occurred that we
know of thanks to Bob Woodward's recent book -- could have set in motion a preemptive strike by
Pyongyang that almost certainly would have involved the use of nuclear weapons. And that means
millions of people would have died.
Now ask yourself: is this person really ready to be president? Is this what passes as the
stuff of presidential timber?
Here are the details. Journalist Max Blumenthal recorded Haley's remarks -- her last major
address before she handed in her resignation -- as the only journalist present at a late
September event at the Council for National Policy. In a Q&A session that Blumenthal
described as "an extended series of candid, and at times disturbing, recollections of Trump's
campaign of maximum pressure against North Korea," Haley broke down her opposition to the
president's tough talk at the UN. But the real money shot from Blumenthal's
piece is here:
It was September 2, 2017, and North Korea had just embarked on its sixth nuclear test
launch. Haley's mission was to ram a resolution through the UN Security Council to sanction
the isolated state. This meant that she had to secure abstentions from Russia and China, the
two permanent members that maintained relations with Pyongyang. It was a tall task, but as
she boasted to the rapt audience at the CNP, she had a few tricks up her sleeve.
"I said to the Russians, 'Either you're with North Korea, or you're with the United States
of America,'" Haley recalled. She said she went to the Chinese ambassador and raised the
prospect of an American military invasion of North Korea. "My boss is kind of unpredictable,
and I don't know what he'll do," she said she warned her Chinese counterpart.
Sadly, besides some mentions on social media and a
fewarticles
, her threat received very little mainstream media coverage. Maybe that's a blessing in
disguise. But one can easily construct a scenario where Haley's comment sets off a chain of
events that starts a Second Korean War. For example, we don't know what the Chinese ambassador
did after Haley made the threat, but most likely he promptly reported it back to Beijing. What
the Chinese government did with that information is vital. Did they warn the North Koreans? Did
they react in some other way?
We will never really know. However, if Pyongyang was tipped off by Beijing, seeing three
U.S. Navy aircraft carriers
drilling with South Korean and Japanese warships in November of last year surely must have
terrified them. Such a concentration of firepower would have been a prerequisite for any type
of invasion or attack. In fact, could these have been the reasons the north decided to test
another ICBM in November?
Again, we will never know. However, Trump's very real proposal, as reported in Bob
Woodward's book Fear , of "sending a tweet declaring that he was ordering all U.S.
military dependents -- thousands of the family members of 28,500 troops -- out of South Korea"
definitely would have provoked a response from the Kim regime.
While Woodward does not give specific dates as to when this nearly occurred -- the full text
before this section suggests an early 2018 timeframe -- he still reveals that we did dodge a
potential war. Just two paragraphs down, Woodward notes that on December 4, 2018, "[M]cMaster
had received a warning at the White House. Ri Su-yong, the vice chairman of the [North Korean]
Politburo, had told intermediaries 'that the North would take the evacuation of U.S. civilians
as a sign of imminent attack.'"
If you put it all together -- not to mention the now famous call to give Kim a "
bloody nose " in early January 2018 -- it is easy to see how close to war we came from
roughly September 2017 to early January of this year. If events had occurred just a little
differently -- if North Korea had perceived things in a direr way thanks to a Chinese warning
of a possible invasion, if Trump had acted on his impulses a little further -- our world would
be a very different place. Pyongyang, thinking an invasion was coming, might have decided that
its only chance to survive was to use its vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction before
they were destroyed. That would have meant launching atomic weapons at military bases and
potential ports of entry for U.S. forces in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii -- or even
attacking the American homeland itself with nuclear weapons. From simulations I have run over
the years, I can tell you that millions of people
would have died in such an event.
Thankfully, history broke a little different and it never happened -- and thank God for
that. But let's not heap praise on public figures who think they can bluff their way through
the great game of global politics. That's not what great presidents are made of.
Harry J. Kazianis(@Grecianformula) serves as director of
Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, founded by President Richard Nixon.
The views expressed in this piece are his own.
"Satire has lost all meaning: The former director of the CIA (which has for decades
trained and armed far-right terrorist death squads), who is now US secretary of state, called
Iran "the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world" while he was meeting with regime
officials in Saudi Arabia, an extremist Wahhabi absolute monarchy that supported ISIS and
al-Qaeda."
During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the
Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou, revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned
from her position as US ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to run for president in
2024.
As Kiriakou said:
I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he
told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of
South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to
endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.
And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted
McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South
Carolina.'
Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley
wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.
So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy
experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to
be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about
foreign policy.
So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's
gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And
then, she's gonna run for president in 2024. During a discussion with Tyrel Ventura and Tabetha
Wallace, hosts of RT show Watching the Hawks , CIA Whistleblower, John Kiriakou,
revealed that Nikki Haley who recently resigned from her position as US ambassador to the
United Nations, is planning to run for president in 2024.
As Kiriakou said:
I actually had occasion to speak with a former very senior member of the Trump campaign, and he
told me a fascinating story. He told me that Henry McMaster, who is currently the governor of
South Carolina and had been a lieutenant governor, was the first elected official in America to
endorse Donald Trump in early 2016.
And by the end of the year, Donald Trump had won the presidency and the campaign contacted
McMaster and said 'what do you want as a reward?' And he said 'I want to be governor of South
Carolina.'
Well, Nikki Haley was the governor of South Carolina. So, what is Nikki Haley want? Nikki Haley
wants to be President of the United States, and she had zero foreign policy experience.
So, what they did, is they moved Haley to the United Nations to give her a foreign policy
experience, Henry McMaster now is a very happy governor of South Carolina. Haley only wanted to
be in the position long enough to say she had been in the position and she knew a lot about
foreign policy.
So, now she's resigning. She's going to campaign for Republicans running for Congress - She's
gonna campaign for the president in 2020 - She's gonna make a lot of money in the meantime. And
then, she's gonna run for president in 2024.
Pompeo puts on his Global Cop Gorilla suit again making absolute demands as a condition for
even continuing negotiations.
However the big question is how much North and South Korea move ahead in spite of the
ham-fisted United States. Then the revealed scenario will be much more stark. I.e., it's not
what the Korea's want that matters, it's what the Gorilla wants.
The play then will be driven by China and Russia. They don't want North Korea with nuclear
weapons either because it's bad for business. As they work with the Korea's toward a
settlement, the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in
which it alone does not define the outcome.
P.S. like with the Russia led Minsk agreement and the Astana talks in which the U.S. has
been shut out, the U.S. cares little about attaining the fundamental peace objectives in
Korea, only that it calls the tune in every regard.
the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it
alone does not define the outcome?
Note that this lack of total control by the U.S. in Korea and other venues may eventually
induce a pathologically dangerous response on several fronts when the Washington Nomenklatura
becomes fully aware of its asymmetric weaknesses. I.e., When a War Machine hammer is all you
got, everything else is a nail.
"... Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater". Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic version of fascism than she. ..."
"... But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. ..."
"... Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent approval rating with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is stupid. ..."
Empire Loyalists Grieve Resignation of Moderate Psychopath Nikki Haley
"Describing Nikki Haley as a 'moderate Republican' is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as 'a moderate meat eater'"
Caitlin Johnstone
Thu, Oct
11, 2018
|
820 words
3,560
164
World War Three proponent and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has
announced her resignation
today, to the dismay of establishment bootlickers everywhere.
"Nikki Haley, ambassador to the United Nations, has resigned, leaving the administration with one less moderate
Republican voice,"
tweeted
the New York Times, without defining what specifically is "moderate" about relentlessly pushing for
war and starvation sanctions at every opportunity and adamantly defending the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian
protesters with sniper fire.
"Too bad Nikki Haley has resigned,"
tweeted
law professor turned deranged Russia conspiracy theorist Laurence Tribe. "She was one of the last
members of Trumplandia with even a smidgen of decency."
"Thank you @nikkihaley for your remarkable service. We look forward to welcoming you back to public service as
President of the United States,"
tweeted
Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the neoconservative think tank/
covert
Israeli
war
psyop firm
Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Thank you @nikkihaley for your service in the @UN and unwavering support for Israel and the truth,"
tweeted
the fucking IDF. "The soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces salute you!"
I'm not going to go over every single fawning, sycophantic tweet, but if you ever ingest poison and can't
afford to go to the hospital because of America's disastrous healthcare system, you can always try going to
Haley's Twitter page
and looking at all the empire loyalists she's been retweeting who've been falling all over themselves to paint her
as something other than the bloodthirsty psychopath that she is. If that doesn't empty your stomach contents all
over your screen, you are made of stronger stuff than I.
Describing Nikki Haley as a "moderate Republican" is like describing Jeffrey Dahmer as "a moderate meat eater".
Besides John Bolton there is nobody within the depraved Trump administration who's been a more reliable advocate
for war, oppression and American/Israeli supremacism, no more virulent a proponent of the empire's photogenic
version of fascism than she.
Whether it's been blocking any
condemnation
of or
UN investigation
into the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian protesters via sniper fire,
calling for a coalition against Syria
and its allies to prevent them from fighting western-backed terrorist
factions, outright
lying about Iran
to advance this administration's regime change agenda in that nation, her
attempts to blame Iran
for Saudi Arabia's butchery of Yemeni civilians with the help of the US and UK, her
calls for
sanctions against Russia
even beyond those this administration has been willing to implement, her
warmongering against North Korea
, and many, many examples from a list far too long to get into here, Haley has
made death and destruction her life's mission every day of her gore-spattered tenure.
But because she only advocates establishment-sanctioned mass murders (and perhaps partly because she wears the
magical "Woman of Color" tiara), Haley can be painted as a sane, sensible adult-in-the-room by empire lackeys who
are paid to normalize the brutality of the ruling class. While you still see Steve Bannon routinely decried as a
monster despite his being absent from the Trump administration for over a year, far more dangerous and far more
powerful ghouls are treated with respect and reverence because they know what to say in polite company and never
smoked cigars with Milo Yiannopoulos. All it takes to be regarded as a decent person by establishment punditry is
the willingness to avoid offending people; do that and you can murder as many children with explosives and
butterfly bullets as your withered heart desires.
Haley will be departing with a disgusting 75 percent
approval rating
with Republicans and 55 percent approval with Democrats, because God is dead and everything is
stupid. It is unknown who will replace her once she vacates her position (I've got my money on Reaper drone in a
desk chair), but it's a safe bet that it will be someone who espouses the same neoconservative imperialist foreign
policy that this administration has been elevating since the beginning. Whoever it is should be watched closely,
as should the bipartisan beltway propagandists whose job it is to humanize them.
UPDATE: Had to include
this gem
from the New York Times editorial board:
"... They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most Iranians like America. I could never understand that. ..."
Samantha Power was terrible too. Hard to say which is worse. They share the same
discourse. No difference between democrats and Republicans. Both defend the Empire by
resorting to invasions, conspiracies, and murder.
Think Power had slightly more between her ears... but the same warmongering
attitudes.
What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them
become warhawks? Think Power, Haley, Rice (both of them), Clinton, Albrighton, Thatcher,
et al?
And them the feminists tell us that the world would be a more just and peaceful place if
there were more of them in office!
"What's wrong with women when they get into positions of power, that so many of them
become warhawks?"
They should definitely send more women to the places they messed up - Afghanistan,
Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran etc. They should never send them to Iran as they will have a fit when they see how
civilised and courteous ordinary people are over there. For some strange reason, most
Iranians like America. I could never understand that.
Because women in power want to imitate men's behavior. Don't want to differentiate
themselves. Bad news for bad feminism. U.S. feminists adore people like Albright or H
Clinton. They are not credible.
US and its 100,000 Intelligence community working for "Monaco" makes as much sense as
Hitler worked for Luxembourgh.
With 22 new Capitol Hill size buildings in Washington DC for CIA since 2001, they could
house whole Israeli state administration alone
Harry Kazianis reviews
Nikki Haley's record as ambassador to the U.N. and finds it very lacking:
That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a
terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the
experience and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is
not enough to be credible on the world's stage.
Kazianis is right that Haley was ill-prepared for the job, and I would add that she made a
habit of making false claims ,
unreasonable demands, and
unnecessary threats . Whether she was
threatening military action over missile tests, telling lies about the
nuclear deal with Iran , or warning
that the U.S. would be "taking names" of the states that didn't fall in line, Haley proved
herself to be a poor diplomat and an ineffective representative of the United States. Her time
at the U.N. was marked by unwarranted, cruel actions to punish
the Palestinian civilian population, a disgraceful
defense of the massacre of protesters in Gaza, and a misguided decision to
withdraw from the Human Rights Council. While the world's worst humanitarian crisis
intensified in Yemen with U.S. support for the Saudi coalition, Haley was too busy trying to
distract everyone's attention by shouting about Iran.
Haley didn't have a good grasp of substance, and instead relied on talking points to a
fault. Kazianis quotes a Republican consultant's view of the ambassador:
"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at
parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for
anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the
land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was
apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."
It is a sign of how little many of her fellow hawks care about substantive knowledge that
several of them greeted news of her resignation with dismay. Max Boot described her resignation as a
"sad moment," and Bill Kristol began fantasizing about a primary challenge
to Trump that will never happen. When these are the people touting Haley's record, it is a safe
bet that the U.S. will be better off being represented by someone else at the U.N.
Following Reagan and Trump, the only reason we don't see actual actors hired for
candidacies and campaigns is because the best Judas Goat for any election rodeo is one that
believes its own BS.
Let's face it. Trump did not have an army of qualified people to fill government and
administration posts. He had to fill positions from the Neocon pool of bureaucrats. Nikki
Haley is a mind-numbed robot, drunk on Neocon Kool-Aid and Premillenial Dispensationalism.
Really sad that Trump picked her for the UN slot. Even sadder is he will replace her with
someone just as bad, but more clever at disguising a rotten foreign policy.
Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon slammed UN ambassador Nikki Haley's decision on
Tuesday to announce her resignation, calling it "suspect" and "horrific," and that it
overshadowed positive news that Trump and the Republicans need to build support going into
midterms, according to
Bloomberg .
The timing was exquisite from a bad point of view ," Bannon told Bloomberg
News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait on Wednesday at the Bloomberg Invest London forum. "
Everything she said yesterday and everything she said about stepping down could have been done
on the evening of November 6. The timing could not have been worse. "
Haley's announcement, according to Bannon, took White House officials by surprise - and
distracted attention from Brett Kavanaugh's first day as a justice on the Supreme Court, along
with headlines over the lowest US unemployment rate in five decades. Haley's decision
undermines Trump's message to Republican voters, said Bannon.
In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said Haley told him six months ago she wanted a break
after spending two years in the post. She'll continue in her role until year-end. Haley said
Tuesday that she was ready for a break after two terms as South Carolina's governor and two
years at the United Nations. -
Bloomberg
Bannon also says that he took Haley at her word that she has no political aspirations -
particularly when it comes to running against Trump in 2020. She says that she looks forward to
campaigning for Trump in two years. That said, Bannon calls Haley "ambitious" and "very
talented," though he said so using a backhanded compliment.
"I think she is incredibly politically ambitious," Bannon added. " Ambitious as Lucifer but
that is probably...I am probably taking Milton out of context."
Trump defended the timing of Haley's departure on Wednesday, saying "there's no good time"
for her to have announced her resignation - and that if she'd waited until after midterms, it
would have raised questions as to whether her motive was based on the results.
Bannon is unhinged. Nikki Haley was horrible in her position! If Bannon payed attention to
voter base of Trump, he'd see Haley was a thorn in the side of the Trump administration.
One of the best appointments Trump has made, is Mike Pompeo. I thought he'd be some crazed
warmonger, but has turned out to be quite the opposite.
He's got this kind of easy going swagger and confidence about him. He's chubby, and his
every day guy, sort of approach, is affable.
Yes sir... her rhetoric is pure deep state war mongering of the most evil kind. She was
told to stir up as much hatred and fear at the UN as possible and try to get the opposition
to do something stupid in response to her remarks. That's not Trump talk for damned sure...
that's deep state talk.
He makes a GREAT point that occurred to me immediately. If you are resigning effective at
the end of the year and everything is awesome, just time to move on.... why the hell are you
publicly announcing it 3 weeks before a VERY contentious midterm election and only a day or
so after a brutal SCOTUS nomination conclusion? Why? Why now? Very curious and a unforced
error.
Or those who hate him – and they are legion – wanted her out, because if Trump
wanted her out her replacement would already have been announced. I saw on one of those
'sponsored content' trash teaser clickbait headlines that it was going to be Ivanka, but not
even Trump would do that. Although you never know – it's not as if Haley brought any
wealth of foreign-policy knowledge to the table, and she was mostly there to be a partisan
spoiler of initiatives the USA did not want to pass. I suppose anyone could do that.
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "
Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire"
until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very un-Trumpish)
got the boot?
As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to "use
megaphones over whispering".
That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and shut
the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".
All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As for
Harper's good riddance, indeed.
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave on a
non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in Apprentice.
Like Colonel suggest
neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful idiot.
IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was cause of his
embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump doesn't give a second
chance to anyone.
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on from
the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the news cycle
moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
My latest information is that Haley's neocon and Zionist sponsors and handlers kept her
busy rhetorically pushing Trump toward what they wanted as foreign policy positions but
which he did not want. Somehow he figured that out, and fired her immediately after
finishing up the Kavanaugh affair. The woman herself is a fairly good looking walking
mass of ambition and dumb as a post. Her sponsors will now stuff her pockets with money
and hope they can keep her alive politically until she can be useful again.
Would I be wrong in asking if NH knew she was going to be fired when she went into that
meeting? Could the reception of Trumps UN speech been the proximate cause, assuming NH
saw it in advance and "approved" it (assuming she had been asked for input)? What does
the UN speech say about the worldview of NH's backers (if anything)?
as washington and americas world influence wanes the UN becomes less useful to the point
of being an obstruction for washintons machinations.
back in the day when washington could herd all the liliputians at the general assembly
the UN provided great cover and legitimacy for the USA. since the mask has slipped
revealing to all but the most obtuse amongst us, washingtons lack of moral legitimacy and
soft power, our influence among the GA members is on a downward trajectory.
ergo it no longer really matters who is our UN ambassador because washington simply
bypasses what it doesn't like that goes on at the UN since it can no longer control the
outcome.
we just had captain kangaroo resign we might as well call up Mcdonalds and see if
ronald would like the gig.
for a rapidly declining empire such as ours it makes no damn difference who is
installed at the UN. one cipher is the same as any other so lets at least err on the side
of entertainment for all of us in flyover land.
Of course she can follow the time-tested formula of top politicians and government
officials - make money lobbying after writing the obligatory book with a huge
advance.
I agree with Harper's take...she was 'eased' out...I have to say that no member of this
administration is more repugnant than this harpy...why Trump ever appointed her is a
mystery...as for her future prospects, I doubt she will go far...I think her 15 minutes
are up...
Speculating that this April incident didn't help Haley back than claiming 'I don't get
confused' regarding additional sanctions on Russia by prematurely announcing the
sanctions according to Larry Kudlow. Kind of a terse comment by her and possibly not
appreciated by the Trump team.
https://www.theguardian.com...
Does Nikki think that she can pull an Emmanuel Macron stunt ?
or is it the fact that her family is in a financial hole and she knows that she can
make more $$$$$ in the private sector , trying to mimic Lt Gen Flynn making hundred
thousands at FOX or another network.
Thank god she's gone!!! I liked Haley just fine as the governor of SC. At first I
thought, given her ethnic background, that she might do well her UN role once she learned
the ropes.
But then I heard her first few shrill neocon-style anti-Russia speeches at the UN
shortly after her appointment. I thought this quite odd given Trump's repeated campaign
statements about having better relations with Russia, so I figured the Borg assimilated
her and was using her as an inside tool to obstruct Trump's FP desires.
This got me thinking about which Borgians might be advising/mentoring her. It sure
wasn't any of the realists at Kissinger Associates. So which Borg think tank might it be?
Maybe Kimberley Kagan took her under her wing or someone else at PNAC
Harper, do you know who any of Haley's mentors are?
One other recent intriguing item was Trump's invitation to Rosenstein to accompany on
his flight to that police chiefs speech the other day. That seemed very important... and
symbolic. It was clearly a dominance technique. Wonder what they talked about on Air
Force One. Not going to be able to get away with any secret recordings there.
Trump has had to deal with some pretty shady characters during the course of his
career. I pondered whether Trump might be trying to "turn" Rosenstein to get at the roots
of the coup.
Do any of you have any better info on the Trump-Rosenstein meeting?
Thanks god and congratulations to our planet, that Niki bites the dust, the very
embarrassing day that the egomaniac Trump chaired the UNSC I knew she will be a goner.
People around trump should know, that he wouldn't take it lightly being embarrassed in
front of whole world and will blame it on who ever organized such an event. I remember he
end up leaving that UNSC meeting early with his head down, thinking how and when he will
be embarrassing her in front of the whole world.
Pat,
" why her UN staff did not know until this morning that she was resigning. "
Dunno, but what about the possibility that she herself didn't knew she was to "retire"
until this morning? That she didn' quit but just quietly (which would be very
un-Trumpish) got the boot?
As for firing people, Trump made a TV show out of that, though usually he prefers to
"use megaphones over whispering".
That'd be the sort of retirement that's more frankly called " get the eff out and
shut the eff up on your way out, and don't forget to say thank you! ".
All it needed for that to happen is the orange king having a "fart sit crosswise". As
for Harper's good riddance, indeed.
IMO, at least she knew she is a goner since last week, I also think she agreed to leave
on a non-embarrassing way, meaning not to be fired in mob boss' favorite way as in
Apprentice. Like Colonel suggest
neocons and her Israeli backers like to preserve her for a later day, she is a useful
idiot. IMO, Trump, like the mob boss he think he is, and acts like, believes she was
cause of his embarrassing performance/program at UN, again like mob bosses Don Trump
doesn't give a second chance to anyone.
Trump is a master of political timing. Perhaps for whatever reason he wanted to move on
from the Kavanaugh hubbub to something else--like Haley resigning. It has dominated the
news cycle moreso than if it had been leaked by a staffer. Just my guess.
Nikki Haley's resignation as President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations yesterday came
as quite a surprise. Haley seemed pleased to play her imagined role as the world's procurator,
as she used her UN perch to incessantly threaten and condemn all the global enemies of her
fellow neoconservatives. She came to the job with no foreign policy experience and she will be
leaving exactly as she arrived.
If Haley's departure came as a surprise, so too did her appointment in the first place.
During the primaries, she was famously in the "
anyone but Donald Trump " camp of neocons, saying that Trump was "everything a governor
doesn't want in a president."
Trump soon returned the compliment,
Tweeting that, "The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!"
Nevertheless, like many neocons who had been critical of Trump, she found herself rewarded
with a top position in the Administration. From her position she had consistently gotten ahead
of her boss, the President, in policy pronouncements and at almost every turn she appeared to
be pushing a Haley foreign policy rather than a Trump foreign policy.
For example, just as President Trump was returning from his historic summit meeting in
Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the US President spoke very
optimistically about a new approach to US/Russian relations, Nikki Haley gave an interview in
which she said, "we don't trust Russia, we don't trust Putin; we never will...they're never
going to be our friend...that's a fact."
Last September she acted as if she, rather than Trump, were the commander-in-chief, Tweeting
of North Korea, "we cut 90% of trade and 30% of oil. I have no problem kicking it to Gen.
Mattis because I think he has plenty of options." The idea that she, and not her boss, would
"kick it" to Defense Secretary Mattis was preposterous, but contradicting and countermanding
Trump's disappointingly rare bobs toward diplomacy and disengagement over bluster and bombs was
a chief characteristic of Haley's reign as UN chief finger-wagger.
President Trump had been extremely critical of Syria's Assad, particularly after he fell for
two false-flag rebel gas attacks blamed on Assad, but he had been careful not to explicitly set
US policy as "Assad must go," as had his predecessor. Nevertheless Nikki Haley again got out
ahead of official US policy with her own policy,
stating in September 2017 that, "we're not going to be satisfied until we see a solid and
stable Syria, and that is not with Assad in place."
Nikki Haley had long been associated with neocon warhawk John Bolton and had also benefited
from the largesse of GOP moneybags Sheldon Adelson, the Israel-obsessed casino magnate who
bankrolled Haley's PAC to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars in 2016 alone. Haley was
Adelson's kind of governor: While South Carolina's executive, she signed the nation's first law
making it a criminal offense to support a boycott of Israel.
How did the mainstream media handle the surprise resignation of such an extreme warhawk?
Someone one might consider on the far fringe of US political life? The New York Times mourned
the departure of Ambassador Haley,
Tweeting that it would be "leaving the administration with one less moderate Republican
voice."
"Moderate" voice?
For such a pro-war extremist to be considered "moderate" by the newspaper of record may
strike some as odd, but as Glenn Greenwald so accurately
explained :
The reason NYT calls her "moderate" is because she affirms all of the standard pro-war,
pro-imperial orthodoxies that are bipartisan consensus in Washington. That's why @ BillKristol reveres her. She was a Tea Party candidate, but "moderate" means:
loves US wars & hegemony.
That's it in a nutshell. Because in Washington being extreme pro-interventionist
and pro-war is the orthodoxy. The facade that there are real differences between the Republican
and Democrat party is carefully crafted by the mainstream media to cover the fact that we do
live in a one-party state. Pro-war, pro-intervention, pro-bombing, pro-overthrow, pro-meddling
- these are moderate positions. For Washington and the mainstream media, the extremists are the
ones who wish to abide by the admonitions of our Founding Fathers that we go not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy.
Well, it seems there are plenty of monsters closer to home.
So good riddance to Nikki Haley...but don't hold your breath that it means the end of Nikki
Haley-ism, which is the foundation of US foreign policy. Clearly we have much work left to
do.
Your tax deductible
contributions to the Ron Paul Institute allow us to provide you with real
analysis of breaking issues. Our continued ability to provide a counter-balance
to the mainstream media's false narrative depends on your
financial support . We thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely yours,
Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Immediately after she resigned, Twitter lit up with theories and opinions about the reason,
with many suggesting Haley could be the Trump administration official behind a highly critical
anonymous
op-ed published by the New York Times last month.
"... "It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to see, that I just started yelling at everybody " ..."
"... We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess with the US. ..."
"... As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us. ..."
"... We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be our friend. That's just a fact. ..."
"... "They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their place is." ..."
"... "weapon of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it." ..."
"... When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is warfare. ..."
"... We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until [President Nicolas] Maduro is gone! ..."
"... If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them. ..."
"... Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just another instrument of international politics. ..."
"... "Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," ..."
"... We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the South China Sea. ..."
Israel seems to be most upset by Haley's resignation from her UN job, since the envoy for
Washington often ended up championing Israeli interests at the world body. Statements like this
one perfectly explain Tel Aviv's grief:
"It was abusive, how bad the international community was to Israel. It reminded me of a
kid being bullied in the playground I just wasn't going to have it. It was just so upsetting to
see, that I just started yelling at everybody "
We had the back of Israel, and if they were going to mess with Israel they had to mess
with the US.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
"I would like to thank Ambassador @nikkihaley , who led the
uncompromising struggle against hypocrisy at the UN, and on behalf of the truth and justice
of our country. Best of luck!" pic.twitter.com/Lr6IvkM5U9
The US envoy was also never shy to pressure the UN member states into voting the way
Washington saw fit. The most notable example of such extortion was the vote on recognition of
Jerusalem as Israel's capital last December.
As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this
vote personally. The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I
report back on those who voted against us.
The threats did not work, however, as the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly rejected
Washington's unilateral recognition of the disputed city as Israeli capital.
Russia is
'never going to be our friend'
When it came to relations with Moscow, the top US diplomat just wasn't very diplomatic on
many occasions, instead choosing to amplify Russophobic rhetoric put forth by Trump's
opposition.
We don't trust Russia. We don't trust Putin. We never will. They're never going to be
our friend. That's just a fact.
"They are aggressive and they can be difficult to work with in the Council... And they
do try to cause some disruption, but we manage them and we continue to remind them what their
place is."
Haley was fully on board with accusations that Moscow meddled in the 2016 US election,
calling them aggression on Russia's part. Election meddling, she said, is Russia's "weapon
of choice and we have to make sure we get in front of it."
When a country can come interfere in another country's elections, that is
warfare.
'Fight until they're gone'
The ambassador showed no sign of awareness that her comments about interference sounded
ironic and hypocritical when placed next to some others she made – regarding places like
Venezuela or Syria.
Last month, Haley joined Venezuelan protesters outside the UN headquarters in New York,
shouting into the megaphone:
We are going to fight for Venezuela and we are going to continue doing it until
[President Nicolas] Maduro is gone!
The US envoy even showed hints of psychic powers, as she tried to downplay Russia's warnings
that Western-backed terrorists were preparing a false flag chemical attack in Syria in order to
set up Damascus. Gazing straight into the future, she appeared to point her finger at President
Bashar Assad's government.
If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use
them.
In July, the US stunned the international community by withdrawing from the UN Human Rights
Council, and the American ambassador had some strong words to back the move.
Judging by how it has fallen short of its promise, the Human Rights Council is the
UN's greatest failure. It has taken the idea of human dignity and it has reduced it to just
another instrument of international politics.
"Its members included some of the worst human rights violators – the dictatorships
of Cuba, China and Venezuela all have seats on the Council," Haley fumed.
Freedom
fighters of Binomo
When dealing with other states, the US envoy tried her best to uphold an image of an expert
on international affairs including on those nation that... well, didn't even exist.
In a scandalous YouTube recording made by two Russian pranksters, posing as a high-ranked
Polish official, Haley was asked to comment on the aspirations of the nation of Binomo in the
South China Sea.
We're aware of that. We've been watching that [Binomo situation] very closely. And I
think we will continue to watch as we deal with the issues that keep coming up about the
South China Sea.
She also said that Russia "absolutely" meddled in the country's election as well
– a truly extraordinary achievement, given that Binomo was entirely made up.
Her
biggest problem as UN ambassador was simple: she was totally out of her depth. "She was
picked for UN Ambassador for one reason," explained a senior GOP political consultant to me,
reacting to the news that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, had just resigned
from the Trump administration. "She was supposed to present a feminine, or supposedly softer
version of Trump's America First message. Instead she became the administration's national
security sledgehammer."
"Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting
whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver," the consultant continued. "But for anyone who has
ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking
points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was
nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN."
Perhaps I can come up with a better description of Nikki Haley. She was Donald Trump's very
own "Baghdad Bob," the propaganda chief under Saddam Hussein who appeared on TV during the 2003
Iraq invasion and said anything the regime wanted, no matter how inflammatory or wrong. While
Haley was never forced to claim anything so preposterous as that Saddam's Republican Guard was
winning a war against a superpower, her ability to trump even Trump in crazy talk was a rare
talent -- and not a welcome one.
That was my problem with the ambassador. Not that she did a bad job, not that she was a
terrible representative of our nation's interests, but simply that she lacked of the experience
and natural abilities needed in such a role. Spitting back Trumpian rhetoric is not enough to
be credible on the world's stage. It would be like asking me to become a plumber: sure, I could
figure it out at some point, but I would leave behind quite a few clogged toilets and busted
faucets along the way.
Haley left behind some busted faucets, that's for sure. If she did make any sort of major
impression, it was thanks to her tough talk on North Korea and Iran. But it was her
hard-hitting rhetoric leveled at the Kim regime that stuck out the most. In an almost comical
attempt to parrot the words of President Trump, who in early September
said at the UN that America "has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend
itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," Haley stated
in November that "if war comes, make no mistake, the North Korean regime will be utterly
destroyed."
That's just for starters. There were also the clear missteps, when we could see her lack of
expertise and preparation at work. In a primetime interview with Fox News nighttime anchor
Martha MacCallum, Haley was asked about the 2018 Olympics and whether U.S. athletes would
participate. North Korea experts knew this was the question that would have to be asked,
and were keen to see what Haley would have to say.
She blew it, big time. The interview, conducted in January, at a time when some thought a
war with the Kim regime was still very possible, drove headlines the world over, as Haley said
she would not commit to U.S. citizens participating, stating, "there's an open question."
MacCallum pounced on Twitter, and rightly so, writing that "Amb. Nikki
Haley not certain we should send our athletes to the Olympics. Will depend on NK
situation."
Now, to be fair to Haley,
the remarks were more qualified than the press made them out to be. Still, they were
confusing to say the least, and show that she was not ready for what was an obvious question.
In fact, Haley seemed to stumble, adding, "I have not heard anything about that" and "I do know
in the talks that we have -- whether it's Jerusalem or North Korea -- it's about, how do we
protect the U.S. citizens in the area?"
What? As another Republican put it to me just a day later: "She had no idea what the hell
she was talking about."
Haley even scared some very senior diplomats, who wondered exactly what the administration
was planning if Washington would not send its citizens or athletes to the Olympics. "Is America
getting ready to attack North Korea? Is that where this is headed?" asked a senior diplomat
here in Washington minutes after the interview was over.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. President Trump can do far better than
Haley.
Harry J. Kazianis ( @grecianformula ) is director of defense studies at
the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm The National
Interest. Previously, he led the foreign policy communications efforts of the Heritage
Foundation, and served as editor-in-chief of The Diplomat and as a fellow at CSIS:PACNET. The
views expressed are his own.
"... The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model. ..."
"... Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so much mediocrity? ..."
"... BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice ..."
"... How did this woman move herself from the dignified, elected position of Governor to trump underling and Israeli bull horn? The things we do for greed! ..."
"... Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump. ..."
"... She leaves Turtle Bay with no achievements and the sound of jeering delegate laughter at the General Assembly still ringing in her ears. ..."
NBC
News
reports that Nikki Haley will be resigning from her position as ambassador to the United
Nations:
In an unexpected development, President Donald Trump's U.N. ambassador, Nikki Haley, plans
to resign, NBC News has confirmed.
Haley informed her staff that she plans to resign. The news, first reported by Axios,
comes ahead of an announcement she plans to make with President Donald Trump at the White
House Tuesday morning.
Haley's tenure as U.N. ambassador was fairly brief and not very successful. The Security
Council did approve additional North Korea sanctions during her time there. Otherwise, she was
known
mostly for ineffectively
promoting the administration's Iran
obsession , picking
fights with most other states over Israel, and calling attention to how isolated the U.S.
has become following the withdrawal from the JCPOA. Her last big effort at the U.N. was the
Security Council session last month that was originally supposed to focus on criticizing Iran.
The administration changed the subject of the meeting to nonproliferation, but that still
allowed all of the other members to tout their support for the nuclear deal and criticize U.S.
withdrawal from the agreement. If that was meant to be Haley's crowning achievement before she
left, it didn't work out very well.
Trump's decision to appoint Haley to this position struck me as odd
from the beginning. Haley had no diplomatic or foreign policy experience, and beyond the usual
knee-jerk "pro-Israel" reactions she did not have any record of talking or thinking about
foreign policy. It is taken for granted that she took the job to build up her credentials on
foreign policy, but her stint as ambassador has been so short that I'm not sure that it will do
her very much good in future political campaigns. When she was appointed, I said that "this may
prove to be a rather fruitless detour for the next few years." Haley's resignation after less
than two years in the job suggests that she concluded that there was no point in sticking
around any longer.
The speculation I've seen, that after the election Trump fires Sessions, appoints Graham, and
Haley gets appointed to Graham's Senate seat, makes a ton of sense. She'll be back, and
she'll run for President someday, guaranteed.
One theory I've heard is that Nikki Haley was thought to be the top contender for a potential
primary challenge to Trump in 2020 (if things didn't go well for the Trump administration).
As you previously noted, she was a vocal critic of Donald Trump in the primaries (the
President doesn't easily forgive or forget criticism). So she was dumped into the UN as a way
to keep her from going rogue. The President doesn't like to see figures in his administration
outshining him, so as she began to make a name for herself as being exceptionally tough on
Iran, Trump kicked the legs out from under that policy directive and sent her to haplessly
defend "non-proliferation".
End result? Two years have passed and Nikki Haley has no real accomplishment to show for
it (Sad!), while at the same time by virtue of working within the Trump Administration, she's
been effectively silenced for two years in her once-vocal criticism. Trump: 1, Haley 0.
The Peter Principle is alive and well in the fractured U.S. governance model.
Of course when that Nitwit Hack transitions to the "private sector" she will be invited to
sit on various BoD's to be a potted plant at Board meetings. And she will also live large
from the remuneration for just showing up. And don't forget the honorary degrees Nikki will
be awarded. It's like the Tin Man getting an honorary "Th.D", (Doctor of Thinkology) from the
Wizard of Oz.
Is there any advanced country on the planet with a political class saturated with so
much mediocrity?
BTW, the BoD scam is a standard political payoff. Susan Bayh the wife of former
Senator Evan Bayh is a middling attorney who made over $2 Million a year flitting from BoD
meeting to BoD meeting. Must be nice
Yeah, agreed with all of the above. Although it's unclear to me that anyone associated with
the Trump administration will walk away with a leg up to seek higher office.
By virtue of most folks disinterest in foreign policy or the UN Haley may have the
advantage over the others in the Trump administration. Getting out early is smart.
As for her lack of competence and knee-jerk Israel supporting bent this may not hurt her
in the long run either with a GOP that has proven itself to be on a path of less and less
competence, less and less integrity, and (one can only hope) less and less relevance.
Well said. She is more the ambassador for Isreal than for America. One can only hope that
Trump realizes this and appoints a diplomat with skills and an even keel. Hope he does not
have Jared Kushner in mind?
There are stories that she accepted gifts she wasn't supposed to accept (no, not curtains). I
think she resigned to head those off, as well as to be available for other positions that
might open up (Senator? President?).
Whatever, it's just the latest in an unprecedented amount of people leaving this
administration. If Trump only hires the best people, why do those smart people keep leaving
him?
1. Yes, she has the Trump stench on her. But by resigning now she has two years to try to
wash it off.
2. To a certain segment of the GOP base, being completely ineffectual at the UN will be
seen as a feature, not a bug.
3. She has one huge advantage over some other potential rivals (Flake, for example) in
that by not being in the Senate this past week she played no part in the Kavanaugh fiasco.
Since she never had to vote on it, she can still try to play it both ways.
Good riddance. An embarrassment to US diplomacy. Her full throated echoing of Trump's
stupidest and most destructive ideas should end her political career, especially coming on
the heels of earlier denunciations of Trump.
Instead, she'll be bankrolled by some rich Zionist creeps, a la Rubio, and turn up again
in 2020 or 2024 offering to keep us bogged down in Middle East wars another four years.
"... As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel. ..."
There is an ongoing coup against not only Trump, but the entire nation, as this video by
"Project Veritas" proves. This State Department subversive claims to be a Democratic
Socialist, which are just Antifa terrorists in suits. Antifa was too radical for SANE
Americans so they re-branded their putrid form of Communism to call it DSA. They're traitors
& saboteurs and should be treated as such .
As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her
rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the
right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so
look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to
our Colonial Overlord, Israel.
Many Americans labor under the delusion that we're an independent democratic republic,
with a USG that honors the cherished Constitution and serves We the People. But that is a
fiction, created by a motley assortment of gangsters, think tanks, the MSM and their mighty
Wurlitzer organ, Hollywood.
The USA is under Israeli occupation, with our American neoCON & Zionist Jew Overseers
still cracking that whip on our backs, but a digital one, not leather. The NWO Plantation
owner is Israel, aided and abetted by the money power of those Rothschild central banks, like
the FED, which is the biggest counterfeiting outfit on the planet. The only way to fix this sordid mess would be a repeat of what happened back in 1776. Either
that, or resign ourselves–and offspring–to a life of misery, poverty, endless
wars and terror .
"... We Americans are totally subject to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows. ..."
"... Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon? ..."
"... Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his money's worth. https://www.investopedia.co... ..."
"... Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. ..."
"... it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone since 2001 under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study: http://www.psr.org/assets/p... . ..."
"... Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny. https://ejmagnier.com/2018/... ..."
"... We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador" to the "others." ..."
"... In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine? ..."
"... Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter. ..."
"... Trump is more savagely and ignorantly aggressive. ..."
"... Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation. ..."
"In her statement during the UN Security Council briefing, Haley said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and its "enablers,"
Russia and Iran have a playbook for the war in Syria. First, they surround a civilian area. Next, they make the "preposterous claim
that everyone in the area is a terrorist," thus making all civilians targets. That is followed by a "starve and surrender" campaign,
during which Syrian security forces keep attacking until the people no longer have food, clean water, or shelter. "It's a playbook
of death. The Assad regime has spent the last seven years refining it with Russia and Iran's help."
According to her it has happened many times before, in July 2018 it happened in Dara'a and the southwest of Syria, where Syrian
forces "trapped and besieged civilians." In February 2018, it was Ghouta. In 2017 it was Aleppo, and prior to that places like Madaya
and Hama.
According to her, Assad's government has left the country in ruins. "The atrocities committed by Assad will be a permanent stain
on history and a black mark for this Council -- which was blocked over and over by Russia from taking action to help," Nikki Haley
said." SF
------------
Well, strictly speaking, her parents were immigrants, not she. She was born in Bamberg, South Carolina, a little town in the Piedmont
that is majority Black. Her parents were professional people at Amritsar in the Punjab. Haley is the surname of her husband. Nikki
is a nickname by which she has long been known. As governor, she was in favor of flying the Confederate flag on the Statehouse grounds
before the Charleston massacre of Black Christians at a Bible study session. They were killed by an unstable white teen aged misfit
whom they had invited to join their worship. After that Nikki discovered that the Confederate flag was a bad and disruptive symbol.
It was a popular position across the country and Nikki became an instant "hit," the flavor of the month so to speak.
I suppose that she was supposed to be an interesting and decorative figure as UN ambassador. She is quite pretty and the South
Carolina accent adds to the effect.
The positions she has taken at the UN with regard to the ME are similar to those expressed by her boss, President Trump. They
are largely reflections of images projected by the popular and mass media operating as Zionist propaganda machines. I don't believe
that the State Department's INR analytic bureau believes the crapola that she spouts with such hysteric fervor. I don't believe that
my former friend David Satterfield believes the crapola. So, where does she get ideas like the ones quoted above? IMO she is trying
to out-Trump Trump. DJT is a remarkably ignorant man concerning the geo-politics of just about everything in the ME. He appears to
have once seen the film, "Exodus" and to have decided on the basis of Paul Newman's performance as Begin that the situation was and
is quite simple - Israel good! Everyone else bad! Nikki's depth of knowledge appears to be just about the same.
She also appears to me to be in receipt of a stream of opinion from various Zionist and anti-Muslim groups probably related to
the anti-Muslim ravings of Maronite and other Christian ME extremists.
These groups cannot seem to understand that alliances shift as does policy. They don't seem to understand that Israel's policy
in Syria is no longer regime change. They never seem to have understood that the Syrian government is the protector of the religious
minorities against Sunni jihadi fanatics.
They don't seem to understand that the Syrian government has no choice but to recover Idlib Province, a piece of Syria's heartland.
pl
Haley's "playbook" is used by the US but not by Russia & Iran as she claims, with all civilians being targeted. Instead, Russia
& Iran have taken warfare to a higher and better level, allowing the armed factions to surrender their arms and get on a bus or
be killed, and many of them took the bus to preserve their lives until the final offensive. A third option, which many of them
took, was to join the SAA and fight against their former comrades. All of this statecraft was revolutionary, and was not at all
as Haley described, including the crocodile tears over Syrian lives which has never been honest especially considering the level
of support Assad has within Syria.
I agree it is revolutionary, at least in modern times in the western world. I wonder if it will set a "trend": a more humane way
to wage war. I am sure it will be studied in war colleges.
One observation I had while thinking about the Ambassador Haley quote you provided (which I think supports the point you
were making in your post):
When the US was in a somewhat similar situation during the occupation of Iraq, where Sunni militants were in open rebellion
and controlling towns like Fallujah, our response wasn't wildly different to the Syrian government's response. The US gov't at
the time typically labeled any armed resistance "terrorists", and while they might acknowledge that there were civilians in those
territories in addition to terrorists, they were just "human shields" and "regrettable collateral damage". Did the US try a little
harder, and have a bit better of technology, training, etc, and do a little bit better of trying to limit damage to civilians
when crushing those uprisings? Yes. But we're mostly talking modest quantitative differences in response, not fundamentally morally
superior qualitative differences. I bet you if you took pictures of towns like Fallujah, Sadr City, etc, after US counter-insurgency
operations, and mixed them in with pictures of trashed Syrian towns that had just been liberated from rebel groups, and showed
them to Nikki Haley, or frankly any neocon, they'd have a hard time telling the difference.
As I was reading this topic Raqqa and Fallujah came to mind. In the case of Fallujah I don't recall if the civilians were given
an opportunity to evacuate. They were not in ISIS controlled Raqqa. In any event Haley's blather at the UN is for the consumption
of the rubes.
as far as i recall in the battle for fallujah, only women and children were permitted to leave during the siege.and during the
siege of Mosul they were dropping leaflets telling people not to try and leave.
And giving civilians a chance to evacuate doesn't help as much as one would think if the insurgents/rebels really do want to use
them as human shields.
Speaking to young marines in the aftermath of the second assault on Fallujah I learned that although women and children were allowed
to pass the checkpoints but men of fighting age (also known as the father, brother or husband who was driving the families out
of the city) were sent back into the city.
In talking with people here in the U.S. about Syria there is the total lack of understanding of Assad's Alawite government. There
are a couple million Christians in Syria and it is Assad's government that protects them from the Saudi sponsored Sunni headchoppers
who would like to eliminate Christians, Jews, and Shia from the Middle East. Perhaps, the Alawites being an offshoot of Shia makes
them sensitive to minority religions. However, mentioning Assad evokes strong negative reaction among U.S. Christians, similar
to Trumps "lets kill them all". On my one visit to Damascus, traveling on my U.S. Passport rather than my Israeli one, The Christians
I met were uniformly positive about Assad and the need for Assad to control the ENTIRE country.
Thank you for providing your direct experience of the views of Christian Syrians you met there.
Unfortunately none of those views ever make it to either to our print or broadcast media. We Americans are totally subject
to ziocon propaganda when it comes to Middle East affairs. Anyone that disagrees with that viewpoint is immediately labeled anti-semitic
and now banned from social media and of course from the TV talk shows.
Jack posed an interesting question, how does someone like Putin respond to an irrational US who in their delusions can
easily escalate military conflict if their ego gets bruised when it is shown that they don't have the unilateral power of a hegemon?
Always thought that Nikki Haley was the price Donald Trump had to pay to get Sheldon Adelson's large campaign contributions
in 2016. Adelson was Trump's second biggest contributor. So was recognition of Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Sheldon got his
money's worth.
https://www.investopedia.co...
There's a disturbing piece up today at WaPo by Karen De Young asserting the USA is doubling down in Syria. From the piece, emphasis
by ex-PFC Chuck:
"We've started using new language," [James] Jeffrey said, referring to previous warnings against the use of chemical weapons.
Now, he said, the United States will not tolerate "an attack. Period." "Any offensive is to us objectionable as a reckless
escalation" he said. "You add to that, if you use chemical weapons, or create refugee flows or attack innocent civilians,"
and "the consequences of that are that we will shift our positions and use all of our tools to make it clear that we'll have
to find ways to achieve our goals that are less reliant on the goodwill of the Russians."
Jeffrey is said to be Pompeo's point person on Syria. Do any of you with ears closer to the ground than those of us in flyover
land know anything about this change of tune?
.Iraq PM urged to quit as key ally deserts him over unrest.
Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi faced calls to resign yesterday as his alliance with a populist cleric who won May elections
crumbled over deadly unrest shaking the country's south. The two leading groups in parliament called on Abadi to step down, after
lawmakers held an emergency meeting on the public anger boiling over in the southern city of Basra.,...
The Conquest Alliance of pro-Iranian former paramilitary fighters was "on the same wavelength" as Sadr's Marching Towards Reform
list and they would work together to form a new government, Assadi said. Abadi, whose grouping came third in the May polls, defended
his record in parliament, describig the unrest as "political sabotage" and saying the crisis over public services was being exploited
for political ends.
http://news.kuwaittimes.net...
Nikki Haley's Sikh origins may have something to do with her anti-Muslim feelings. According to J. D Cunningham, author
of 'History of the Sikhs (Appendix XX)' included among the injunctions ordained by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth guru, 'a Khalsa
(true Sikh) proves himself if he mounts a warhorse; is always waging war; kills a Khan (Muslim) and slays the Turks (Muslims).'
Aside from this, it is hypocritical in the extreme for the U.S. to be criticising anyone for killing people anywhere after
what they have been doing in the Middle East. According to Professor Gideon Polya the total avoidable deaths in Afghanstan alone
since 2001
under ongoing war and occupation-imposed deprivation amount to around three million people, about 900,000 of whom are infants
under the age of five (see Professor Gideon Polya at La Trobe University in Melbourne book, 'Body Count: Global Avoidable Mortality
Since 1950' and Washington DC-based Physicians for Social Responsibility study:
http://www.psr.org/assets/p... .
Your good professor sounds like a great piece of work. "Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950" Perhaps we should have
stopped all that foreign aid in the '50s.
The under five mortality figures from Afghanistan (1 in 5) are a problem that preceded our involvement by many years. However,
the failure of the international community to make any significant progress over the last 17 years would be a legitimate criticism.
Is it in our DNA that we can't learn lessons from our interventionist experience in the Middle East? Looks like Iraq is
spinning out of control once again. I'm sure many including the Shia may reminisce favorably to the Sadam years despite his tyranny.
https://ejmagnier.com/2018/...
We are indoctrinated with the idea that all people are basically the same. In fact this is only true at the level of basics
like shelter, food, sex, etc. We refuse to really believe in the reality of widely varying cultures. It makes us incapable, as
a group, of understanding people who do not share our outlook. i have been dealing with this all my life as a delegated "ambassador"
to the "others."
Thank you, Sir. It makes perfect sense with the End if History and all those beliefs.
In this context, if you were Vladimir Putin and knowing that President Trump is completely ignorant when it comes to history
and policy details and has surrounded himself with neocons as far as foreign policy is concerned and Bibi has him eating out of
his hands, how would you deal with him if he starts to get belligerent in Syria and Ukraine?
You may be interested in a recent article in Unz by SST's own 'smoothieX12' in response to Paul Craig Roberts asking how long
Russia should continue to turn the other cheek:
http://www.unz.com/article/...
Did the Syrians get upset by General Sherman's destructive march through South Carolina? No. It was a mistake for the US ever
getting involved in Syria, with forming, equipping and training foreign armies and shadow governments including replacement prime
ministers, all in violation of the UN Charter.
A new PM was at the top of H.Clinton's to-do list as Secretary of State. My favorite Assad replacement candidate was Ghassan
Hitto from Murphy Texas, but he only lasted a couple months.
here
I don't trust converts except for the adjustment from Protestant to Catholic or vice versa. I suppose shifts from one madhab to
another, or between Buddhist schools are also ok.
Sad that in a moment of crisis,so many of the rising political stars of both parties are so hollow to the point of dangerousness.
Has anything really changed much with our policies in the ME in the past 50+ years? Haven't we been deeply influenced/controlled
by Israeli interests in this period, maybe even beyond if the attacks on USS Liberty are taken into account? Is the Trump administration
just following in the traditions of Reagan, Bush Père et fils, Clinton and Obama, or is there a qualitative difference?
Trump, Nikki and Bolton have been tweeting warnings about the Idlib offensive and already accusing Assad if there are any
chemical attacks. Wonder why? Lavrov has also made comments that he expects a chemical use false flag. Not sure about this
post on Zerohedge, but if it has any credibility then it would appear that the US military is getting ready for some kind of provocation.
Maybe this is all just "positioning" and "messaging" but maybe not. With Bibi, Nikki, Bolton and Pompeo as THE advisors, does
anyone have a clue what Trump decides, when, not if, the jihadi White Helmets stage their chemical event in Idlib?
IMO Mikey Pompeo suffers from Smart Guy Syndrome. My wife calls it Great Man Syndrome. In both of these a delusion of centrality
sets in based on a belief in one's own superiority. This rots the mind. Mikey has always been the smartest kid in the room. You
know his resumé. And, pilgrims, he has a smiley face welded onto his real sharkey face. These attributes have carried him far
but he has a weakness or two. He really does think he is a being above the ken of mortal men AND he is a hyper-nationialist neocon
ideologue through and through and in many ways immune to appeals to reason. He surely think thatTrump is a dolt. Look at the picture.
He has contradicted the president several times. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Trump is a reality based self-centered
hustler who is used to dealing with supercilious p---ks who want to manipulate him.
Now Mikey has John-John Bolton as ally and playmate. Bolton is, IMO, more than a little crazy. Bolton loves his place in an
NSC made over into extensions of his neocon craziness. He thinks that he has the Iranians right where he wants them. He believes
that we could fight a maritime campaign in the Gulf with next to no losses and that if necessary we can bomb the Iranian people
into unleashing their economic deprivation wrath against the mullahs.
Pompeo agrees with him. He is trying to keep the president buttered up while pursuing his shared goals with Bolton both cleverly
and surreptitiously. Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk.
Off to one side in this drama, stand the inbred caste of generals and admirals. Trump professes to admire them, but Mattis,
Dunford and CENTCOM are steadily losing real power in the contest for the president's attention. IMO there will be a unifying
deal between Damascus and the YPG Kurds and Trump knows all about progress toward that goal. Do the generals want that? No. They
have their own desired foreign policy. They want to make the casualties of the last 15 years meaningful through victory somewhere,
anywhere would do. They also want revenge against Iran for men lost in Iraq. They listen to the Israelis far too much.
IMO Trump has a private line of communication to Russia. This is perfectly legal and probably is conducted over CIA communications
links or through the ambassador in Moscow, Jon Huntsman or both.
Pompeo may or may not know what is being said in those channels. pl
if Trump is such a reality-based hustler who knows how to deal with supercilious p--cks" like Pompeo and Bolton, why the heck
does he keep bringing those p--cks on board and then waste so much time and energy on dealing with them? Are there no prospective
officials around who are not of that stripe? Or is it that Trump is unable to detect them and/or unwilling for some reason
to bring them in and put them to work?
I'm reminded of a point made throughout Vol. 1 of Michael Broers' brilliant new biography of Napoleon -- that Napoleon,
who despised the talk-talk-talk of parliaments and liked best to work with and through committees, had a near-infallible gift
for detecting the best and the brightest, whether or not they had impressive credentials or even if they had opposed or still
opposed some of his policies. In these committees, which dealt with both political and military matters, all were expected
to speak freely, while Napoleon listened like a hawk. For him the key test, aside from the committee members' intelligence
and energy, was whether they were men of honor -- by which he meant that when agreements had been reached after all had had
their fair say and Napoleon had put his stamp on them, they would abide by what had been thoroughly vetted and agreed to. An
autocrat, for sure, and yet...
He hired people recommended to him by their cronies like Rosenstein, Wray, Pruitt, Coates. There have been many
mistakes.like
that. He could not appoint the kind of people he had eaten well-done steaks with in NY while hustling them in a deal. He also
relies too much on his gut reaction to people he meets.
Yes but, if he is that susceptible to dubious advice, isn't that something of a flashing-red-light character flaw -- just as
Napoleon deserves blame for taking the advice of the treacherous Josephine on several disastrous occasions (i.e. the decision
to invade Haiti)?
No, he is not. We all lament The Boltens and Pompeos. However, where is he to find "good people"? The American political class
is reflectively myopic and partisan. Find some more Jon Huntsman types (where? IDK) who can serve American interests without
all the Sturm und Drang of today's hyperbolic, puerile political warfare.
I would wager that Trump sees both of them as dangerous but useful idiots that willingly play their role in his "good-cop,
bad cop" negotiating tactics. They will be gone with the next tacking.
I was pleasantly surprised at Bolton's behavior in Russia and in his comment that getting rid of Assad was no longer the goal
of the US. To be sure, time will tell, but it's clear that at this point Trump is driving foreign policy and is far more self-confident
than he was in 2017.
Whatever Pompeo says doesn't matter- if he tries to throw up walls to a summit, Trump will tell him to go to hell. It's
a core principle of Trump's that meeting is not a "concession." He knows that "legitimacy" is an utterly meaningless concept,
not something that can be granted or withdrawn by the US president. If Iran offers Trump a meeting, he'll meet. No questions
asked.
"Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk."
I completely agree with you Col. I hear people call Trump a moron or a genius, I think that what makes him so vexing is that
he is both at the same time. He is probably very good at making certain nobody gets the better of him, especially his subordinates.
Except for the belief on Trump´s masterliness on anything, I never would had thought I will be agreeing with you all the way
till the last line....of this concrete post....What I most agree with you in is in Pompeo´s overestimating his own capabilities...and
I conclude also along with you that is a very dangerous situation...But, if you see it so clear, and we all too, could you
provide a convincing explanation on why Trump, being such a master on personal management and business administration, elected
Pompeo and Bolton for office in the first place?
Thanks in advance, in case you answer my question and do not find something outrageous enough for your sensibility in my
comment so as to delete it.
"... Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do. ..."
"... I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know ..."
"... What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him. ..."
"... It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it. ..."
"... No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion. ..."
Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia
this week in which he made some remarkable statements:
Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There's no reason for
them to be there. There's been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces,
Iranian militias must leave the country.
If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business keeping
troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no
business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of
this statement coming from a U.S. official.
The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a
half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has
been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have
had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the
height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to
make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces
from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.
What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God
Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him.
It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that
Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which
there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must
assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about
it.
No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this
blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and
fixated on some other stupid notion.
"... Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage that she would rather ignore. ..."
The Trump administration's Iran obsession would almost be comical if it didn't have such a dangerous distorting effect on our
foreign policy. Iran's actions in the region were not the subject of the meeting where Haley said this, and talking incessantly
about Iran to avoid addressing the issue at hand has become a typical maneuver for Haley whenever U.S. clients commit some outrage
that she would rather ignore. Whether she is busy whitewashing Saudi coalition crimes in Yemen or running interference for Israel
after it massacres over 60 people, Haley's m.o. is to change the subject.
Haley also risibly
claimed that Israel was acting with restraint yesterday:
"No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has. In fact, the records of several countries here today
suggest they would be much less restrained," she said.
The ambassador's claim is absurd on its face, and it is an insult to the dozens of democratic states around the world that do
not behave this way. Haley also ignores that there are no other states in the world that keep millions of people trapped in a blockaded
enclave as Israel does with the inhabitants of Gaza. Not only would the vast majority of democratic governments not act as Israel's
government has acted over the last few weeks, but none would have any need to confront massive protests from a population that has
been deliberately starved and impoverished for more than a decade. The excessively violent response to the Gaza protests calls attention
to the cruel policy of collective punishment imposed on all of the people living in Gaza, and there is no excuse for either of them.
"... I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find the answers to my own questions. ..."
@ anon with the Niki Haley approval rating of 63% etc.
I expect that the poll was designed/targeted/conducted/processed with that reported
result in mind ....what questions were asked? To whom did they ask the questions? How was the
data massaged? And who funded it? Poor, or even middle class people never fund any polls, do
they? I poked around a bit at the college that ran the poll but don't have the patience to find
the answers to my own questions.
The current geo-political world is exposing all sorts of folks that support what I call the
God of Mammon narrative and their associated moral failings. As a species it is way past time
that we confront the centuries old assumptions that make up our "social contract"...such as it
is/is not.
The Netanyahoo circus is not the underlying friction in our world. The underlying friction
in our world is about debt, global/local investment and the cost of doing business including
geo-political stability. We have enough food to feed everyone but there are distribution
problems because of greed and social control desires. The same is true for housing, health
care, education, etc. Our current social contract precludes everyone from having all those
things because our social contract says that in the Western world all the tools of finance
shall be owned/controlled privately. And furthermore that social contract (didn't you sign it?)
says that there are these rules called laws that give not only "ownership" but that ownership
in perpetuity through other rules/laws of inheritance to individuals/families.
IMO, if we want to change the world for the better or ever to save our asses we need to
confront the underlying social contract that none ever discuss openly.
Your assessment of Nikki Haley as a 'mental lightweight' is likely right. However zionists
probably like that in their manchurian candidates. See this thread from the saker... note her
zionist righthand man, jon lerner...
"In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who surfaced in the news lately after she
unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused."
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley for president,
a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah Palin. Indeed,
the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very cerebral or much
given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are reflexively
aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both are
passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. "
"
Anonymous on April 26, 2018 · at 2:24 pm EST/EDT
One might be inclined to dismiss Haley as another sarah palin, not too bright. This shows she
might become relevant as a zionist manchurian candidate. They already seem to be grooming her.
See the article below about her key aide, jonlerner
Zionists may prefer not-too-bright frontmen because they can be more easily controlled,
think georgewbush, ronaldreagan, donaldtrump etc someone who is too bright might think
themselves out of their control e.g. billclinton started off strongly proisrael, but by the end
he becoming more savvy about israel his wifes political ambitions may have shorted that,
" 5 Things To Know About Nikki Haley's Jewish Right-Hand Man Jon Lerner
Nathan Guttman December 11, 2017
He holds a senior position in the Trump administration and has made a name for himself as
one of the most successful political consultants, yet Jon Lerner, manages to steer clear from
the spotlight. Currently serving as America's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, under
Nikki Haley, Lerner, 49, was recently described in a New York Magazine article as "the No. 1
person [Haley] listens to," and with speculations that Haley's political ambition could lead
her all the way to the White House, Lerner is the man to follow.
Here are a few facts about Jon Lerner:
He May Pave Haley's Road to the White House
The New York Magazine reported that Lerner "has a long-term plan for Haley, and he is there
to make sure nothing derails it." This long term plan began back in South Carolina when Lerner
managed Haley's 2010 successful gubernatorial race and maintained its momentum when she entered
the Trump administration as top United Nations representative. Lerner was appointed deputy
ambassador but stayed behind to run Haley's Washington office.
senator Jim DeMint, [described] Lerner as having "a very good strategic mind."
"Where I follow my gut, Jon relies on facts and the statistics he finds in his polling,"
Haley wrote in her 2012 autobiography "
Reply
Anonymous on April 30, 2018 · at 4:41 am EST/EDT
nikki haley is the most popular active politician in america, with 63% approval, trump 39% (
obama is top 66%) in one poll. perhaps this shows the ongoing crumbling of american democracy,
the principled design of its fundamental institutions (like the elections, the press, the
supremecourt etc) being massively gamed in reality by the minions of the 1%.., sad !!
If Nikki Haley was supposedly voted most likable US politician hence I suggest, lock the US
insane asylum and throw out the key, since now anything will be blabbermouthed and nothing of
substance will really happen except some unwitting crisis actors will die, a fact of inhumane
cruelty of imperial rulers.
Where are dire warnings from Russia about severe consequences if Syria attacked.
Russians lost credibility of their threats which is even worse if they have never made
them.
I do not know what it would take for people to see what cruel charade all this is, what
would it take for people to realize that it is all Roman type of theater of wilderness and
pain and we are audience and targets of this propaganda of fear of global nuke war and
destruction that they want us to believe is behind all this cruel soap opera.
There will be no global war since there are no fundamental conflicts within global elites
despite what propaganda from all sides claims and that including b, trying to make sense of
utter unadulterated nonsense of MSM, for those establishment people in west who are already
in it are not idiots but rational people who do that immoral, opportunist job for money
knowing what they lie about, knowing that there is no danger of global nuke catastrophe
whatsoever, otherwise they would act more sober like it was during Cold War.
However, there is logic in this madness, namely to forcefully align nations with
discredited ruling elites who attempt to take role of saviors, when no other method of
control over population works any more and policies of deliberated destruction of welfare and
civil society, openly provoked mass unrest or revolution and instigated natural growth of
working class movements in self defense. Warmongering was classical ploy against discontented
population used many times in history and nor mere speculation.
Spreading of fear of global anihilation among populations is the ultimate objective of
this unheard of verbal and acting belligerence on world stage, which upon examination of
basic socioeconomic facts especially soundness and calm of global financial system indicates
mood of world peace and love among oligarchic elites who have a good thing going while
sheeple are orderly dying of starvation and fear.
But I guess even on this quite brainy blog people are more interested in menacing tabloid
surrealism than boring naked truth. Otherwise, b would not have much to write about in his
devastating reports on masive MSM lying, with implicit hope that one day may be NYT writes
some truth.
It ain's gonna happen b , their business is lies yo
Recall it is Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for
ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially
controls the White House.
Mike Pompeo was President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company and
close partner of Koch Industries. Also recall the recent meeting between the heads of the
FSB and SVR, Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin, received by Pompeo, then director of
the CIA, and Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence.
Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin Secretly Received in the United States
In hindsight this meeting appears to have been a strategy session conducted by extremely
important high level individuals from Russia with their 'partners' in the United
States.
The meeting occurred immediately before the firing of Rex Tillerson, an agent of the
UK-Rothchild 'Octopus,' which effectively controls Exxon-Mobil (the Rockefellers sold their
interest several years ago) of which Tillerson was formerly head. Tillerson, who once ran
the foreign policies of multiple countries dominated by Exxon-Mobil including Qatar, was
said to have been caught red-handed by the NSA under James Kelly, of assisting the UK
conspiracy to launch a chemical false flag attack in Eastern Ghouta, the discovery of which
led to Tillerson's unceremonious dismissal by Donald Trump via Twitter, a truly
unprecedented way to fire a US Secretary of State.
Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief
diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite
and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with
the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so
dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.
Pompeo also
said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the
agreement:
"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they
get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters
traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities,
things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the
[agreement]."
It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it
doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with
Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness.
John Bolton's
endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since
North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale
of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea
won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different
reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is
engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a
full-fledged nuclear weapons state.
North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons
anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are
right to keep them.
Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing
because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's
recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and
sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.
Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than
crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump
hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current
trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East
crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our
government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead
of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless,
staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.
"... Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. ..."
"... She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his U.N. appointment at least. ..."
"... Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican. ..."
"... She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections. ..."
"... Ask Mike Pence. She's Pence's pick. Pence wants a fellow Ziocon stooge at the UN instead of pro Assad Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a higher caste. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl." ..."
"... Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the exception. ..."
"... Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton. ..."
"... "Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs; easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. " ..."
"... Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on his team. He sees himself in her, y'know. ..."
"... The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran) and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets. ..."
I have noticed Haley's awfulness from the beginning, which I see is now 15 months. Awful
though Bolton is, one feels that he has some knowledge that might even make him pull back
from Armageddon (maybe, not sure).
But Haley is a fool and grotesquely ignorant. Notice how, in the alleged chemical
attacks, she takes no thought or action at all to ascertain truth, but she outdoes herself
trumpeting the harm caused, and the children suffering.
As if the fact that children are suffering somehow proves guilt. I can't imagine anything
so ignorant.
She is a vile creature who has no contact with truth whatsoever. Does Trump not see
this at all? Perhaps he does in a dim way, but by now he is so suborned and by the Deep State
and depressed by the relentless opposition that he is probably glad no one is criticizing his
U.N. appointment at least.
Never dismiss the fool, for he wards no fear, no blame and and no trust. He sees no worth
or value and can be swayed by the most trivial things. He seeks no reward but an emotional
gratification. While these sound of a foe easily defeated the truth is oft the opposite for
your threat and presence are fallen on the senseless. If you must fight a fool you must give
him room and let hubris and frailty fight your war, otherwise, you must be swift, with out
mercy and be able to ward the madness that will ensue.
I don't know who penned that but I think it's profound.
Nikki Haley's yappings are just the barking of a dog.
She has no agency. If she sounds 'scary', it's only because she is owned by Zionist
globalist supremacists. If they ordered her to shut up and be nice to Russia and Iran, she
will obey.
She has no mind of her own. Same with Bolton the Dolton.
And she's different from Samantha Power, how? Under Obomba
Or John Bolton under Bush the Lesser?
Seems to be a tradition in the making of putting the most arrogant, rude, least
diplomatic, and aggressive person possible in the position of ambassador to the UN.
Has anybody ELSE been steady, three administrations, non-stop PUKING? Makes it clear, if
nothing else, our "humanitarian" face has peeled off, revealing the brain-eating zombie
underneath.
When you confront staunch Israel supporters with the isolation of Israel in the world, as can
be seen at UN voting, the answer is that this is because of the anti Israel Muslim bloc in
the UN.
The weird thing about jews is that with all their cleverness they're unable to see
reality.
Israel is right, the rest of the world is wrong.
Now even if this were the case, any sensible person would take reality into
consideration.
Not so idiots as Netanyahu.
When the next jewish catastrophe has happened, jews again will see how how they are the
eternal innocent victims, if then jews still will exist, as a nuclear world war is likely to
kill any human being world wide.
Already around 1953 a USA diplomat said that Israel should behave as a small ME country, in
stead of the head of an international group.
They still do not understand.
Once (Bolton) was kind of an anomaly, because, after all, it WAS Bush the Lesser.
But Nobel Peace Prize-sporting Obomba, puts in Power.
Now we got Haley.
Maybe TWICE is a co-inkydink, but this is absurd! Fucking EVERYBODY blows us away
diplomatically! Who is worse? N. Korea does some wicked TWEETS, but their diplomats are
circumspect. Ours are visibly RABID.
One of these days, someone is gonna put us out of their misery, and suck though it will,
it will be highly deserved! Afterward, perhaps humans can progress once the USA is a giant
smoking crater. Or at least D.C. Has ANYONE ever begged for it THIS bad? Ever?
Nikki Haley is THE mouthpiece of the Zionist aggressive occupation regime. She serves its
interests and acts to the detriment of the American people that have to carry the can for the
partisanship with this rogue Zionist state. President Trump should sack her before she
challenges him in the next presidential race. Haley will have the backing of the
trigger-happy Ziocon establishment and the Zionist billionaires.
Together with John Bolton, they seem like the perfect "Doomsday Couple" to bring the U.S.
down. Perhaps they are the last true believers in Zionism, the Jewish racist ideology,
although both are not Jewish. It's not surprising that Jewish and American exceptionalism are
similar in their racist beliefs.
Haley's behavior is hyperbolic, arrogant, and extremely dangerous to the reputation of the
U. S. but it seems as if she acts according to the slogan: Freely you live, if you haven't a
reputation to lose. But under the borderline Trump administration even a "un-American"
behavior, it benefits the Zionist regime, seems acceptable.
So far, all so-called chemical weapons attacks by the al-Asad government were false flag
attacks carried out either by al-Nusra, ISIS or al-Qaida terrorist organizations or by the
"White Helmets" themselves that are a so-called a terrorist affiliate organization, disguised
as paramedics, to draw the U. S. directly into the Syrian conflict.
Under Obama, they failed, and Trump made some symbolic bombings to pacify the
trigger-happy Zionist lobby. How mentally deranged Haley seems, shows her arrogant statement:
"We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its people."
With which "civilized world" should Russia take sides? Does Haley mean the U. S. or the
Zionist occupation regime? The first one has slaughtered millions of people in endless wars,
the later has been subjugated another people for over 50 years and destroyed its existence.
This "civilized world" and its values are for the garbage dump.
Despite his twitter manticism, Trump was still a kind of common sense that can
differentiate between the good for America in contrast to the good for Israel for the sake of
the American people.
Noeconservatives arguably don't have enough appeal for them to get the presidency.
Unfortunately, they can still have clout as evidenced by Haley in her role and how the likes
of MSNBC and CNN uncritically praise her.
Well if she does make it to POTUS we have historical equivalence. The Dying days of the Roman
western Empire. in the mid 4th century BC. Roman Empire at this stage had two imperial
cities. one situated in ROME being hounded by the Goths and the other one in the East
Byzantium present day Istanbul. The point is in the western dying Imperial days they put as
emperor a child well Haley becomes POTUS one could only say History repeating itself. The
scary thing about all this is pax-americana is slowly dying. Recent economic figures coming
out of the west show this. All recent gains have nothing in common with industrial output.
Profits are all related to the stockmarket grandest ponzi scheme in the history of western
man.
Latest events from the Skripal imbroglio to Douma all show signs of desperation .
BY DECEPTION YOU MAY WAGE WAR.
Note the three countries that illegally bombed Syria on the sad nite of April 13th 2018 were
the exact ring leaders to the total destruction of the highest standard of living of the
African continent.
RINSE ,LATHER ,REPEAT.
Post Scriptum: It is sad and scary to see that from 1999 to this day not withstanding all the
lies that NATO and FUKUS have spewed to the world and have been exposed as such we the
sheeple can fall for the same trap.
THE WEST HAS ENTERED INTO THE WORLD OF ZOMBIES .
Critical thinking gets labelled as enemies of the state. Boy Goebbels must be so envious of
recent events.
How Orwellian our western society has become.
Another very good article by Philip Giraldi. If the US wasn't dominated by foreign agents and
roving gangs of ziocon lobbyists, Giraldi would be widely respected, considered 'mainstream',
and known to millions. But powerful forces are determined to prevent this.
What we get instead are empty suits reading scripts.
We live in an era where political extremism (aggressive war is a prime example of
extremism) has been declared 'centrist' and 'moderate'. Advocates of non-intervention are
labeled 'fringe'.
Political illusions happen. They happen by design.
Fortunately, Giraldi demonstrates a commendable ability to separate US interests from
contrived foreign agendas. This is not often done. And he does it well.
For revealing this, Giraldi and a few other daring intellectuals have been defamed as 'far
right'. Their sin? Telling the truth (to the best of their ability) about Zio-American
malfeasance in American life and on the world stage.
Their quiet exile from the corridors of political power shows how debased and unmoored our
culture has become. Giraldi's diminished status is the end-product of targeted censorship,
economic sabotage, and strategic defamation. This phenomena affects us all.
What do we get instead?–delusional sell-outs like John McCain, Lindsey Graham,
Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley. Frauds all, including the journalists who adore them. The
corruption in America is wide and deep.
Washington's queer political values are hopelessly under the thrall of liberal
interventionists, ne0con militarists, televised war barkers, and deep state vampires. These
amoral extremists have become America's political 'establishment'.
Trump notwithstanding, the Swamp, the alphabet government agencies, the two Parties, the
major lobbies, donors, and NGOs (and of course, Big Media) are what rules America.
Average, non-organized voters have no political influence.
But it is our mainstream news and entertainment media that ultimately earns the most
responsibility for Zio-Washington's trigger-happy embrace of aggressive militarism in all
policies and instances that could affect Israel (which is virtually everything.)
This Zionist 'value' opens a very big door.
This commitment is a recipe for endless strife and intervention. Yet our media supports
it. Continuously and uniformly.
And the chief beneficiary is (you guessed it).
Incredibly, Washington spends far more time agonizing over borders and security in the
far-away shitholes (pardon the expression) than on our own southern border. Who dreamt up
this ridiculous scheme?
This level of corrupt insanity did not happen by accident.
Incredibly, if enough empty suits and talking heads repeat a myth or falsehood enough
times, it becomes 'true'. Voila! The magic of TV.
Political hallucinations and bizarre double standards become very real. Very 'true'.
The problem with being arrogant when you are on top of the world is that you are remembered
and reviled when you get knocked down a peg. The guys in the dock at Nuremburg learned that
at the end of a rope. She'll never face that sort of justice, though, because we can't lose,
right?
The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has diplomats
that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment.
But I disagree, Mr. Giraldi! Their is coherence in State policy, that is to serve the
State of Israel.
Nutty Nikki is idiotic, vindictive, hateful and very bellicose and would not hesitate to
use our kids and tax dollars to support Apartheid Israel, and is loved by multi-billionaire
Sheldon Adelson, which means she will be the next POTUS.
Haley ran for governor of SC as the "tea party" candidate. She killed the careers of a
number of would be Republican establishment politicians, which is why many voted for her. In
other words, she is a total opportunist, a classic, typical unprincipled Republican.
She has learned how to manipulate the system up to a certain point, but is too dumb to
go any further. How sad that people like Adelson are able to buy elections.
When is Trump going to prosecute Soros for conspiracy to interfere with the U.S. and other
countries?
The lack of progress on immigration can, maybe, be explained as Trump faces fierce
resistance, but Bolton, Haley, and Pompeo are unforced/forced errors, that will make it
nearly immposible for him to keep his promise of ending these stupid wars.
Better than Hillary, but more than a little disappointing.
Haley has too many skeletons in her closet to run for president. While running for SC
governorship rumors of her affair with conservative blogger Will Folks surfaced. She tried to
deny it of course, claiming to be "completely faithful" to her husband of 13 years, then Will
Folks shared text messages and frequent, lengthy middle of the night phone calls between
them, some as long as 180 minutes, all after 10pm (hey she had to put the kids to bed first):
In his latest book, Michael Wolffe claimed that Nikki Haley had an affair with Trump,
which Haley dismissed as "disgusting", one wonders if Trump took that as a compliment.
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Haley is sleeping with her current "advisor" at the UN
(paid for by taxpayers btw) Jon Lerner, who she has also kindly shared with Mike Pence, one
hopes only the advising part, not the bed, but who knows.
Something tells me she's sleeping with Netanyahu as well. She sure loves her Jewish
men.
"Ambassadors" are supposed to make peace, but Trump who claimed he wanted to end all foreign
wars end up with an ambassador to the World who only wants to make wars, with everybody! She
even wanted Trump to send troops to Venezuela! Anytime Trump is within 10 ft of this mad
woman, he's talking about bombing somebody.
Was there ever any evidence that Trump considered Tulsi for Amb. to UN? Wasn't that just
goofy talk from Tulsi's fans?
I doubt she would have wanted it, anyway. Not exactly a step up, being appointed to a
position from which you could be summarily dismissed .. as opposed to an elected official
with a definite term and, other than pressure from the DNC – which she has handily
bucked – freedom to express independent views.
She is not a moron; rather smart, clever and articulate riding on the wings of the jew
to power. Immorality is her shield, no one her judge, americans a lower caste, the jew a
higher caste.
I keep wondering why Trump has not fired that know-nothing. He's not been afraid to fire
people for far less offenses against his Admin. I suspect that the Israel Lobby will not let
him, and made him hire her in the first place. She used to be a "Never-Trumper," after all.
In an otherwise fine piece, I wish that Giraldi would have opined as to why she's still
there.
Haley is a stupid, opportunistic woman who simply goes where the money is, and that is by
doing the bidding of the Zionists in USA and Israel. The author even points out that her
mentor is Zionist asswipe from the National Review Johah Goldberg's wife! She comes across as
such a stupid woman that she perhaps doesn't realize she's being brainwashed and used as a UN
mouthpiece of advance the Zionist Israeli agenda.
Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy.
Well, what I'm trying to say, very sadly, is that this insufferable douchebag wench will
most likely be your next president
Does a purportedly high IQ protect one from stupidity?
High IQ signals intelligence, but not wisdom. Wisdom comes from experience, and being able
to apply your high IQ to learn from those experiences. Many high IQ people in fact lack
practical wisdom a.k.a. common sense
No doubt, it's hard especially for an ally (like me) to get under Philip Giraldi's
thick-skin, but I am compelled to try now.
Nikki Haley is just a bit-part actress similar to the talented & useful woman featured
in LeCarre's complex but educational novel "The Little Drummer Girl."
Indeed, she could become President of ZUS as could Oprah Winfrey. All originate from
Jewish Central Casting, selection.
In closing, linked below is some homegrown CENSORSHIP originating from "The Land of Milk
& Honey."
Most men don't like their trophy wives either, that is, they like them at first but the
match soon deteriorates from there. They tend to look good in the original packaging but are
way overpriced and not worth the money. Buyers remorse is the rule rather than the
exception.
to show disdain for the UN by sending yet another cartoon Exceptionalist;
factional carveups: to give the neoTrotsykites a position that they think is
meaningful;
to keep Haley out of domestic politics and too busy to properly prepare the ground
for a presidential candidacy.
There are probably others – note that none of them has anything to do with diplomacy
or international relations (except as a repudiation of the concepts).
Neither are effective at all: under both Bolton and now Haley (and "RicePower") the
US has had to increase the baksheesh it distributes around the world in order to buy
compliance and diplomatic support – they have, as a group been unable to slow the
decline of US prestige.
So the 'operational' side of things is a wash.
Bolton's preternaturally unpersuasive, because he's a grotesque parody of a human
being.
And there's where it gets interesting: there is upside risk to Haley if she were
able to Clintonise herself – by which I mean behave more like Bill , not more
like Hillary. If she was more 'aw-shucks', she would get more done (frankly I don't think
that's her aim, because like all politicians she's interested in doing things for herself,
not for her current boss).
Haley could be far more persuasive/effective because in her best moments she's quite
personable (plus she's still very pretty when she turns on the charm, which is always
a plus).
The downside is that her 'best' moments are very few and far between – she spends
most of her time with that particularly waspish hate-face so common among formerly-pretty
women who realise that their best years are behind them.
Frankly, the notion that she's a plausible presidential candidate is laughable: when the
US does eventually elect a female president, the successful candidate will be whiter than the
whitest Pilgrim.
It is beyond farcical to believe that the Republican voter base would elect a 'dusky'
woman for the highest national office: bear in mind that Haley would be repudiated ex
ante by Democrats because she's on the wrong side, and US presidential politics is almost
entirely decided by base-mobilisation.
Deep down Haley probably realises this, and that will also be a source of rancour.
How exactly are these neocon Israel apologists created, vetted, accepted?
It must be some weird ceremony that would make La Cosa Nostra look like
a Ladies Garden Club invitation.
By the way, 3,000 Palestinians weren't shot at the latest dustup.
Nimrata the neocon harpy is just one of the gifts that the 1965 immigration and
naturalization act keeps on giving. She's the Republican version of Hildabeast Clinton.
If she ever ascends to the throne in D.C. her "conservatism" will consist of militant
philo-semitism while being liberal on social policy and a warhawk on foreign policy. Hannity
will gush joyfully over her.
"Nikki Haley in a nutshell: stupid; big mouth; infantile understanding of foreign affairs;
easily manipulated; will do anything for more money and attention; and a total dumbshit
sellout to Israel with zero integrity, morality, or empathy. "
Hmmmm. A typical Trump appointee. Trump saw her qualifications and just had to have her on
his team. He sees himself in her, y'know.
To keep the bluff going, the US can't afford to push the button. End of story.
The mistake here is to talk about the "US". The "US" (as in the population of the United States), have no to say in any of this. They
voted against war but it was pointless (Trump is ramping up the pressure on Russia and Iran)
and that crowd of US "consumers" is as politically useless as it gets.
Power in the US is held by a rabid crowd of Zionist who control Congress and the media,
and THEY DECIDE what happens along the lines of "Israel First".
So your question should be, "To keep the bluff going, can Israel afford to push the (US)
button?"
The answer could well be Yes.
1) Syria and Iran would be destroyed giving Israel undisputed dominance of the Middle
East.
2) The US would be plunged into chaos and the COG (Continuity of Government) legislation
installed by Reagan would come into play. This is basically an Emergency Dictatorship run
from bunkers around the US, that the Zionists tried for on 9/11 (and failed to get) but would
certainly achieve under this new scenario.
With totalitarian control of the United States, the Zionist Neo-Bolsheviks could do what
they wanted with the remains of the US population, and who cares if 100 million Goys die in a
nuclear exchange with Russia/China (which would also conveniently be in ruins).
"... So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views if she were to become the neocon dream president. ..."
"... Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris, but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong ..."
She's clearly aiming for the Oval Office and would be the dream occupant for neocons
The musical chairs playing out among the senior officials that make up the President Donald
Trump White House team would be amusing to watch but for the genuine damage that it is doing to
the United States. The lack of any coherence in policy means that the State Department now has
diplomats that do not believe in diplomacy and environment agency heads that do not believe in
protecting the environment. It also means that well-funded and disciplined lobbies and pressure
groups are having a field day, befuddling ignorant administrators with their "fact sheets" and
successfully promoting policies that benefit no one but themselves.
In the Trumpean world of all-the-time-stupid, there is, however, one individual who stands
out for her complete inability to perceive anything beyond threats of unrelenting violence
combined with adherence to policies that have already proven to be catastrophic. That person is
our own Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley , who surfaced in the news lately after
she unilaterally and evidently prematurely announced sanctions on Russia. When the White House
suggested that she might have been "confused" she responded that "With all due respect, I don't
get confused." This ignited a firestorm among the Trump haters, lauding Haley as a strong
and self-confident woman for standing up to the White House male bullies while also suggesting
that the hapless Administration had not bothered to inform one of its senior diplomats of a
policy change. It also produced a flurry of Haley for higher office tweets based on what was
described as her "brilliant riposte " to the president.
One over-the-top
bit of effusion from a former Haley aide even suggested that her "deft rebuttal" emphasizes
her qualities, enthusing that "What distinguishes her from the star-struck sycophants in the
White House is that she understands the intersection of strong leadership and public service,
where great things happen" and placing her on what is being promoted as the short list of
future presidential candidates.
For sure, neocon barking dog Bill Kristol has for years been promoting Haley
for president, a sign that something is up as he was previously the one who "discovered" Sarah
Palin. Indeed, the similarities between the two women are readily observable. Neither is very
cerebral or much given to make any attempt to understand an adversary's point of view; both are
reflexively aggressive and dismissive when dealing with foreigners and domestic critics; both
are passionately anti-Russian and pro-Israeli. And Kristol is not alone in his advocacy. Haley
regularly receives praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the
Murdoch media as well as in the
opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard.
The greater
problem right now is that Nikki Haley is America's face to the international community, even
more than the Secretary of State. She has used her bully pulpit to do just that, i.e. bully,
and she is ugly America personified, having apparently decided that something called American
Exceptionalism gives her license to say and do whatever she wants at the United Nations. In her
mind, the United States can do what it wants globally because it has a God-given right to do
so, a viewpoint that doesn't go down well with many countries that believe that they have a
legal and moral right to be left alone and remain exempt from America's all too frequent
military interventions.
Nikki Haley sees things differently, however. During her 15 months at the United Nations she
has been instrumental in cutting funding for programs that she disapproves of and has
repeatedly threatened military action against countries that disagree with U.S. policies. Most
recently, in the wake of the U.S. cruise missile attack against Syria, she announced that the
action was potentially only the first step. She declared that Washington was "locked and
loaded," prepared to exercise more lethal military options if Syria and its Russian and Iranian
supporters did not cease and desist from the use of chemical weapons. Ironically, the cruise
missile attack was carried out even though the White House had no clue as to what had actually
happened and it now turns out that the entire story, spread by the terrorist groups in Syria
and their mouthpieces,
has begun to unravel . Will Nikki Haley apologize? I would suspect that if she doesn't do
confusion she doesn't do apologies either.
Haley, who had no foreign policy experience of any kind prior to assuming office, relies on
a gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts" to help shape her public utterances, which
are often not cleared with the State Department, where she is at least nominally employed. Her
speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah
Goldberg. Unfortunately, being a neocon mouthpiece makes her particularly dangerous as she is
holding a position where she can do bad things. She has been shooting from the lip since she
assumed office with only minimal vetting by the Trump Administration, and, as in the recent
imbroglio over her "confusion," it is never quite clear whether she is speaking for herself or
for the White House.
Haley has her own foreign policy. She has
declared that Russia "is not, will not be our friend" and has lately described the Russians
as having their hands covered with the blood of Syrian children. From the start of her time at
the U.N., Haley has made it clear that she is neoconservatism personified and she has done
nothing since to change that impression. In December 2017 she warned the U.N. that she was
"taking names" and threatened retaliation against any country that was so "disrespectful" as to
dare to vote against Washington's disastrous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital,
which she also helped to bring about.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley first became identified as an unquestioning supporter of Israel through her
signing of a bill punishing supporters of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and
Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level. Immediately
upon taking office at the United Nations she complained that "nowhere has the U.N.'s failure
been more consistent and more outrageous than in its bias against our close ally Israel" and
vowed that the "days of Israel bashing are over." On a recent visit to Israel, she was feted
and
honored by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. She was also greeted by rounds of
applause and cheering when she spoke at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, saying "When I come to AIPAC I am with friends."
Nikki
Haley's embrace of Israeli points of view is unrelenting and serves no American interest. If
she were a recruited agent of influence for the Israeli Mossad she could not be more
cooperative than she apparently is voluntarily. In February 2017, she blocked the appointment
of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United
Nations because he is a Palestinian. In a
congressional hearing she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual
of Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the U.N. are mutually exclusive?" Haley
responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking every Palestinian.
Haley is particularly highly critical of both Syria and Iran, reflecting the Israeli bias.
She has repeatedly said that
regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority, even when the White House was
saying something different. She has elaborated on an Administration warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime"
by tweeting " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who
support him killing his own people." At one point, Haley warned "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
At various U.N. meetings, though Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of
institutional bias towards Israel, she has never addressed the issue that Israel's treatment of
the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled against it. Her
description of Israel as a "close ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to actual
American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at
least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. Nor has she spoken up about
the more recent shooting of three thousand unarmed Gazan demonstrators by Israeli Army
sharpshooters, which is a war crime.
Haley's hardline on Syria reflects the Israeli bias, and her consistent hostility to Russia
is a neoconservative position. A White House warning that it had "identified
potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime led to a
Haley elaboration in a tweet that " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on
Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, 2017 after
Russia blocked a draft U.N. resolution intended to condemn the alleged Khan Shaykhun chemical
attack, which subsequently turned out to be a false flag, Haley said , "We
need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government that
brutally terrorizes its own people."
Haley is particularly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of the
unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli and neocon viewpoints. She claimed on
April 20, 2017 during her first session as president of the U.N. Security Council, that Iran
and Hezbollah had "conducted terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the
more serious terrorism support engaged in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She
stated in June 2017 that
the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that has engaged in
"illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling," while
"stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that
might easily be challenged.
So, Nikki Haley very much comes across as the
neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations – full of aggression, a staunch
supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the
rest of the world. And there is every reason to believe that she would nurture the same views
if she were to become the neocon dream president.
Bearing the flag for American Exceptionalism does not necessarily make her very good for
the rest of us, who will have to bear the burdens and risks implicit in her imperial hubris,
but, as the neoconservatives never feel compelled to admit that they were wrong , one
suspects that Haley's assertion that she does not do confusion is only the beginning if she
succeeds in her apparent quest for the highest office in the land. Worse than John Bolton?
Absolutely.
Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues.
Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president
needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that
the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his
nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the
very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.
"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "
Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for
some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that
making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and
restaurants were not businesses too.
Unsurprising to see the likes of CNN and MSNBC siding with Haley. Trump should've dumped
her awhile back. Contrary to the CNN/MSNBC spin, she has been an embarrassment for the US at
the UN. Upon her UN appointment, it was thought that Haley couldn't be worse than Samantha
Power.
During his presidential bid, Trump spoke of bringing in competent non-establishment types.
The case for Jim Jatras as UN ambassador:
As noted, Tulsi Gabbard would've been a good selection as well.
The US didn't challenge Russia's more updated missile defense system in Syria shielding
Russian forces. It's not like Washington can control everything.
Through their anti-Syrian proxies, the US has a roughly 30% control of Syria. A few days
before the most recent alleged Syrian government chemical attack, Trump said he wanted out of
Syria. I believe he was either duped into bombing, or knows that the chemical weapon claim is
in the very suspect/outright BS ranges of probality.
Iran doesn't want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran
wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this. Trump pulls
out. Rest remains same. This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue
its nuclear program with China and Russia.
This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries -- how to conduct
business internationally.
So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran. Trump is happy. His base angry.
His enemies can't go after him for few hours or days . Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley
has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.
At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that "we had killed a couple of hundred
Russian contractors." As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put
a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open
season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?
"... "She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's all." ..."
Confused!!! How dare Larry Kudlow suggest Nikki got confused!!!
>White House press secretary Sarah Sanders insisted more sanctions were merely under
consideration. On Tuesday, top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Haley "got ahead
of the curve."
"She's done a great job," Kudlow said of Haley. "She's a very effective ambassador. There
might have been some momentary confusion about that. But if you talk to Steve Mnuchin at
Treasury and so forth, he will tell you the same thing. They're in charge of this. We have had
sanctions. Additional sanctions are under consideration but not implemented, and that's
all."
Haley, speaking for the first time since the White House dialed back her claims, rejected
the idea that she was confused.
"With all due respect, I don't get confused," Haley said in a statement read by Fox News'
Dana Perino and confirmed by CBS News Tuesday.
"... Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. ..."
"... Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely (albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south western Syria. ..."
The US media outlet Politico has published claims based on internal White House leaks, which report that the
controversial US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, is the author of Trump's anti-JCPOA and broader
anti-Iran policies, which were conveyed in his speech form the White House, yesterday evening.
Haley is known to be among the most hardened neo-cons in the Trump administration, with strong ties to the
anti-Iranian American Israel lobby. Her role as US Ambassador has been far more public than that of most of
her predecessors. Many, including myself, suspect that Haley who has no previous foreign policy experience, is
using her position at the UN to promote a future entry into elected politics at a Federal level.
According to Politico, in July of this year, Trump grudgingly certified the JCPOA under advice from
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James "Mad Dog" Mattis. However, at the time, Haley was
said to have volunteered to author an argument which could be employed in the future, which would attempt to
justify a US de-certification of the JCPOA.
"At a mid-day meeting in the Oval Office in late July, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley came to President
Donald Trump with an offer.
Trump had grudgingly declared Tehran in compliance with the 2015 Iran nuclear deal earlier in the month,
at the urging of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Trump hated the
deal. But the two men pushed him to certify it, arguing in part that he lacked a strong case for declaring
Iran in violation. A refusal to do so would have looked rash, they said, convincing Trump sign off for
another 90 days.
Haley, in that July meeting, which also included National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Vice
President Mike Pence, asked the president to let her make the case for decertification
'Let me lay a foundation for it', she said, according a source familiar with the proceedings. The
president agreed.
Haley would become the administration's most vocal public proponent of decertification -- and Trump's
favorite internal voice on Iran -- further boosting her standing with the president at a time when she is seen
as a potential successor to Tillerson, whose tense relationship with Trump has burst into the open in recent
days.
A month after her talk with Trump, Haley flew to Vienna to visit the headquarters of the International
Atomic Energy Association, where she pressed officials about Iranian compliance with the deal. Soon after,
she delivered a speech at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., airing her "doubts and
concerns" about the agreement.
Haley's role was described by a half-dozen administration officials who took part in the Iran policy
review. While many of the president's cabinet members, aides, and advisers work to restrain his impulses,
when it came to Iran deal Haley did the opposite -- channeling what many Democrats and even some Republicans
consider the president's destructive instincts into policy".
The story from Politico which also argues that arch neo-con John Bolton pushed for a full withdrawal from
the JCPOA from his position outside of the White House, follows may well known trends. This helps explain why
Mattis recently stated that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA and why Rex Tilleron's State Department has
officially said the same.
Nikki Haley has often defied the moderate voice of Rex Tillerson and even James "Mad Dog" Mattis on a
number of issues. Haley for example has repeatedly said that 'Assad must go', while Tillerson and Mattis have
been far more realistic about the fact that President Assad will in all likelihood, continue to govern Syria
for the foreseeable future.
She has also echoed Donald Trump's aggressive statements about North Korea, whereas Rex Tillerson has often
repeated his view that the US does not and should not seek regime change in Pyongyang and instead will continue
to pursue a diplomatic process.
Nikki Haley also famously said that Russians cannot be trusted, while Rex Tillerson has worked closely
(albeit usually through phone calls rather than grandiose public meetings) with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov and was seen as instrumental in creating the joint Russian-US-Jordanian de-escalation zone in south
western Syria.
At one point, Rex Tillerson was said to have privately
reprimanded Haley
for inventing her own foreign policy without consulting her superiors at the State
Department. However, it seems that in respect of Iran, Trump has overruled Tillerson and allowed Haley to take
charge.
Haley later told journalists that she was offered the position of Secretary of State but turned it down,
before being offered the position of Ambassador to the UN. Haley further attested that she sent Trump a list of
demands that she never expected to be agreed upon, as a precondition for accepting her current position.
Haley who has long been seen as a rogue figure in the Trump administration and one who is widely exceeding
her authority, is apparently doing so with Donald Trump's approval.
With rumours swirling that Rex Tillerson planned on resigning, even before it emerged that he allegedly
called Trump a "fucking moron", there is now an increased possibility that a hyper-neo-con, might soon become
the chief foreign policy maker in a Trump administration that was elected on the basis of opposing the neo-con
ideology.
With many Trump administration officials coming and going in short order, there is a very worrying
possibility that Nikki Haley's role will only be enhanced in future months. This is dangerous not only for the
United States, but for the wider world. Haley's inexperience is only matched by her zeal for bellicose measures
against countries which have not done any harm to the American people. Such a person should not be anywhere
near power, but it seems as though she has Trump's ear, far more than the vastly more mature Tillerson and
Mattis.
"... And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal. ..."
SPEAKER: What is your view as to whether America should withdraw unilaterally from the Iran nuclear agreement?
MIKE POMPEO: I want to fix this deal. That's the objective. I think that's in the best interest of the United States
of America.
SPEAKER: But if the agreement cannot be changed. My question is pretty simple. We're running very close to a deadline
on certification.
MIKE POMPEO:And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level
best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal.
SHARMINI PERIES: Pompeo is a member of the Tea Party movement, and is generally viewed as a pro-war hardliner who has previously
vowed to cancel the Iran agreement ...
... ... ...
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let's just take the issue of Iran, for starters. There he said at the hearing that he would not try to get
out of the Iran nuclear deal, that he wants a better deal. But in the past he's talked about getting out of the Iran nuclear deal.
And not only that he said that regime change is the only way to deal with Iran. And as CIA director he also downplayed the CIA's
assessment that Iran was complying with the deal although at the hearing he said he has no reason to deny that Iran is complying.
So he says very different things and in different places. But I think his actions and his statements in the past speak louder than
the words at the hearing, which were quite deceptive, and he's trying to win over Democrats. So he was evasive on some of the issues
that he has been very clear about in the past, such as striking Iran, North Korea, and certainly he was open about the president's
right to bomb Syria.
... ... ...
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Now, speaking of Syria and the tensions that are arising with Russia over the chemical attack that Russia
now says, and in fact Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is on record saying they have information that some one else, some other
country, initiated this attack in Syria. This is really a heightening the tension between Russia and the United States. So let me
go to you on this, Phyllis, first, and then we'll go back to Medea. But your take on this rising tension between U.S. And Russia?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is a very, very dangerous moment, when we have Trump, with all of his own proclivities towards war and against
diplomacy, surrounding himself by what looks like a clear war cabinet. The danger of escalation in Syria is very serious. It could
lead to a direct clash between the two most powerful nuclear weapon states in the world, the United States and Russia. You have completely
opposite claims emerging from Washington and Moscow, with the U.S. claiming that they know, even though they also agree that they
don't have information, but they know that chemical weapons were used as they were used by the regime in Syria. They seem to know
a lot for a government that admits it doesn't know anything yet.
The Russians, on the other hand, have variously said that another country might be involved. Another Russian diplomat has said
that there was no chemical attack at all. So for myself, I don't actually believe any of these claims by any of the governments.
I'm waiting to hear what the report is of the team that's on its way to D ouma right now, the town outside of Damascus where the
alleged chemical weapons attack occurred. The team of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. That's the the internationally
acknowledged, internationally credible team that will be determining whether or not chemicals were used, what chemicals were used
if there were any, who was affected, what delivery systems, et cetera. They are not mandated to determine who fired or who gave the
orders to fire. That's a much more political question that will come back to the Security Council and may stall there, we don't know.
But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago. So I think that we need to do everything
possible to ramp down this level of rhetoric. When the U.S. continues to talk about the inevitability of new strikes against Syria,
knowing that this is a direct violation of both, again, international law and U.S. domestic law and threatens the possibility of
retaliation against U.S. troops in the region, U.S. warships in the Mediterranean, U.S. warplanes in the skies, and, most importantly,
threatens the possibility, the likelihood, of killing more Syrian civilians. We are facing a very, very urgent crisis even before
we get to the possibility of serious escalation.
So this is something that Congress needs to take very seriously. And unfortunately in what we've seen in the Pompeo hearing there
was simply not enough, not enough pushing for this candidate to be the supposed leader of diplomacy in the United States, to push
him on the necessity not of saying well, we hoped that we could have a diplomatic solution, but if not well then nothing is off the
table. That's not OK. That's not acceptable to the U.S. chief diplomat. And we are simply not hearing enough pressure to make that
position known.
... ... ...
But I was going to put it in the context of remember that we have Bolton as the national security adviser, who did not have to
have a confirmation hearing. This is why somebody like Jeff Merkley, a senator from Massachusetts, came out and said he will not
vote for Pompeo because he recognizes it as part of this larger cabinet, that this is a war cabinet, and therefore a vote for Pompeo
is a vote for war. So I would say continue the fight not to get a confirmation for Mike Pompeo.
SHARMINI PERIES: Phyllis, is that even possible?
PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. And it's crucial. This is exactly what we need to be focusing on right now. The way the votes come
down, it's very, very tight. There are at least, at least one Republican, Rand Paul, who has said he will vote against Pompeo. It
looks like McCain will not be there because of his illness. That cuts out two votes. So it's certainly a possibility. But it's going
to take an enormous amount of work. Enormous numbers of phone calls and visits and protests and threats of not voting back those
members of Congress who, who would go ahead and vote for this person as being the new head of diplomacy. This is as urgent as it
gets.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Phyllis. I thank you so much for joining us. Phyllis is with the Institute for Policy Studies New
Internationalism Project. And Medea Benjamin, thank you so much for joining us. And Medea's from Code Pink. Thank you both.
Nonsense lead . The regime change trope is totally bi-partisan as yesterdays air strikes clearly indicate. Pompeo etal like
most American federal government officialdom are now lackeys and on the payrolls of the MIC , CIA, and banksters. There is no
Iran nuclear deal , Trump is right about that . Iran has moved under Russia's nuclear umbrella as North Korea is now under China's,
making the rush to develop nukes unnecessary at the present time. Obombers treaty was/is a worthless face saving effort, after
the destruction of Libya.. Trump increasing represents the wishes of the duopoly, not the electorate, his latest terror attack
on Syria bumped his popularity 5% across Americas, knocking down the looming Stormy scandal perhaps...
Phyllis: "But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago."
We do know, because we listen daily to the other side of the story too. There was NO Chemical attack . The White Helmets
filmed the deception.
These two Workers of the Douma Hospital's Emergency room, are eyewitnesses of the Lie that was sold by the Western MSM,
which is a tool of the Deep State:
-Syrian Eyewitnesses Reveal How Douma Provocation Was Made- (Published by Sputnik, on Apr 13, 2018)
Arguing for a right-wing Congress to overturn decades of executive war making "privilege" is a bit of a lost cause at this
point. Pompeo is the latest iteration in a long line of those at the State Department who have ditched diplomacy in favor of war.
gustave courbet > novychelovek
Consistent theme in caricatures of other nations/groups relates to their inherent "otherness." Be it Clapper's comment
about Russians being "genetically driven" to "co-opt," or Kim Jong-un's reputation as a madman, or Iran's fundamentalist world
view, they have in common the tendency to project a fundamentally irrational disposition on one's adversaries.
In reality, most governments, be they pseudo-democratic, theocratic, etc are motivated by pragmatic self-interest. In Iran's
case, they can use history to compare non-nuclear states to nuclear powers in regards to US bellicosity and see a clear
pattern.
At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo boasted that "the Russians met their
match. A couple hundred Russians were killed," referring to a US massacre of military
contractors back in February. Pompeo insisted these killings prove Trump's toughness on
Russia.
The comments threaten to make this incident a bigger diplomatic row. The February 7 incident
came after the US claimed Kurds had come under attack. In reality, an artillery barrage landed
half a kilometer from a Kurdish base, and the US reacted by killing
in excess of 200 pro-Syrian government fighters, declaring the killings "self-defense."
At the time, there were concerns Russian citizens were among the slain, and US officials
ultimately said "scores" of the dead may have been Russian. Now, Pompeo appears to be insisting
they were all Russians, and that the killings were about being "tough" of the Russian
government.
Russia's government denied any knowledge of the incident at the time, and it appears the
slain were private contractors working for the Syrian government, and not in concert with
Russia's government itself. That makes targeting them on the basis of their nationality
potentially even more problematic.
There is a special breed or neocon female warmonger in the USA -- chickenhawks who feed from crumbs of military industrial complex.
Is not Haley a replays of Samantha Powell ? The article remains mostly right is you simply replace the names...
Of cause, Haley is a little bit more obnoxious and has no respect for truth whatsoever. she can call while to be black with
straight face.
Notable quotes:
"... Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier. ..."
"... Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. ..."
"... For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war continues to tear the country apart to this day. ..."
"... Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist groups. ..."
"... Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually hunted down, tortured and murdered. ..."
Exclusive: Liberal interventionist Samantha Power along with neocon allies appears to have prevailed in the struggle over
how President Obama will conduct his foreign policy in his last months in office, promoting aggressive strategies that will lead
to more death and destruction, writes Robert Parry.
Propaganda and genocide almost always go hand in hand, with the would-be aggressor stirring up resentment often by assuming the
pose of a victim simply acting in self-defense and then righteously inflicting violence on the targeted group.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power understands this dynamic having
written about the
1994 genocide in Rwanda where talk radio played a key role in getting Hutus to kill Tutsis. Yet, Power is now leading propaganda
campaigns laying the groundwork for two potential ethnic slaughters: against the Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities
in Syria and against the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine.
Though Power is a big promoter of the "responsibility to protect" or "R2P" she operates with glaring selectivity in deciding who
deserves protection as she advances a neocon/liberal interventionist agenda. She is turning "human rights" into an excuse not to
resolve conflicts but rather to make them bloodier.
Thus, in Power's view, the overthrow and punishment of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad takes precedence over shielding Alawites
and other minorities from the likely consequence of Sunni-extremist vengeance. And she has sided with the ethnic Ukrainians in their
slaughter of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In both cases, Power spurns pragmatic negotiations that could avert worsening violence as she asserts a black-and-white depiction
of these crises. More significantly, her strident positions appear to have won the day with President Barack Obama, who has relied
on Power as a foreign policy adviser since his 2008 campaign.
Power's self-righteous approach to human rights deciding that her side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats is
a bracing example of how "human rights activists" have become purveyors of death and destruction or what some critics have deemed
" the weaponization
of human rights. "
We saw this pattern in Iraq in 2002-03 when many "liberal humanitarians" jumped on the pro-war bandwagon in favoring an invasion
to overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. Power herself didn't support the invasion although she was
rather mealy-mouthed in
her skepticism and sought to hedge her career bets amid the rush to war.
For instance, in a March 10, 2003 debate on MSNBC's "Hardball" show -- just nine days before the invasion -- Power said, "An American
intervention likely will improve the lives of the Iraqis. Their lives could not get worse, I think it's quite safe to say." However, the lives of Iraqis actually did get worse. Indeed, hundreds of thousands stopped living altogether and a sectarian war
continues to tear the country apart to this day.
Power in Power
Similarly, regarding Libya, Power was one of the instigators of the U.S.-supported military intervention in 2011 which was disguised
as an "R2P" mission to protect civilians in eastern Libya where dictator Muammar Gaddafi had identified the infiltration of terrorist
groups.
Urged on by then-National Security Council aide Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama agreed to support a military
mission that quickly morphed into a "regime change" operation. Gaddafi's troops were bombed from the air and Gaddafi was eventually
hunted down, tortured and murdered.
The result, however, was not a bright new day of peace and freedom for Libyans but the disintegration of Libya into a failed state
with violent extremists, including elements of the Islamic State, seizing control of swaths of territory and murdering civilians.
It turns out that Gaddafi was not wrong about some of his enemies.
Today, Power is a leading force opposing meaningful negotiations over Syria and Ukraine, again staking out "moralistic" positions
rejecting possible power-sharing with Assad in Syria and blaming the Ukraine crisis entirely on the Russians. She doesn't seem all
that concerned about impending genocides against Assad's supporters in Syria or ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.
In 2012, at a meeting hosted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, former U.S. Ambassador Peter W. Galbraith
predicted "the next genocide
in the world will likely be against the Alawites in Syria" -- a key constituency behind Assad's secular regime. But Power has continued
to insist that the top priority is Assad's removal.
Similarly, Power has shown little sympathy for members of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority who saw their elected President Viktor
Yanukovych overthrown in a Feb. 22, 2014 coup spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other right-wing nationalists who had gained effective
control of the Maidan protests. Many of these extremists want an ethnically pure Ukrainian state.
Since then, neo-Nazi units, such as the Azov battalion, have been Kiev's tip of the spear in slaughtering thousands of ethnic
Russians in the east and driving millions from their homes, essentially an ethnic-cleansing campaign in eastern Ukraine.
A Propaganda Speech
Yet, Power traveled to Kiev to deliver a one-sided
propaganda speech on June 11, portraying the post-coup Ukrainian regime simply as a victim of "Russian aggression."
Despite the key role of neo-Nazis
acknowledged even by the U.S.
House of Representatives Power uttered not one word about Ukrainian military abuses which have included reports of death squad
operations targeting ethnic Russians and other Yanukovych supporters.
Skipping over the details of the U.S.-backed and Nazi-driven coup of Feb. 22, 2014, Power traced the conflict instead to "February
2014, when Russia's little green men first started appearing in Crimea." She added that the United Nations' "focus on Ukraine in
the Security Council is important, because it gives me the chance on behalf of the United States to lay out the mounting evidence
of Russia's aggression, its obfuscation, and its outright lies. America is clear-eyed when it comes to seeing the truth about Russia's
destabilizing actions in your country."
Power continued: "The message of the United States throughout this Moscow-manufactured conflict and
the message you heard from President
Obama and other world leaders at last week's meeting of the G7 has never wavered: if Russia continues to disregard the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine; and if Russia continues to violate the rules upon which international peace and security rest
then the United States will continue to raise the costs on Russia.
"And we will continue to rally other countries to do the same, reminding them that their silence or inaction in the face of Russian
aggression will not placate Moscow, it will only embolden it.
"But there is something more important that is often lost in the international discussion about Russia's efforts to impose its
will on Ukraine. And that is you the people of Ukraine and your right to determine the course of your own country's future. Or, as
one of the great rallying cries of the Maidan put it: Ukraina po-nad u-se! Ukraine above all else!" [Applause.]
Power went on: "Let me begin with what we know brought people out to the Maidan in the first place. We've all heard a good number
of myths about this. One told by the Yanukovych government and its Russian backers at the time was that the Maidan protesters were
pawns of the West, and did not speak for the 'real' Ukraine.
"A more nefarious myth peddled by Moscow after Yanukovych's fall was that Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in
order to topple a democratically-elected government."
Of course, neither of Power's points was actually a "myth." For instance, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy was
sponsoring scores of anti-government activists and media operations -- and NED President Carl Gershman had deemed Ukraine "the biggest
prize," albeit a stepping stone toward ousting Russian President Vladimir Putin. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
A Shadow US Foreign Policy ."]
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland was collaborating with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt how to
"midwife" the change in government with Nuland picking the future leaders of Ukraine "Yats is the guy" referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who was installed as prime minister after the coup. [See Consortiumnews.com's "
The Neocons: Masters of Chaos ."]
The coup itself occurred after Yanukovych pulled back the police to prevent worsening violence.
Armed neo-Nazi and right-wing militias,
organized as "sotins" or 100-man units, then took the offensive and overran government buildings. Yanukovych and other officials
fled for their lives, with Yanukovych narrowly avoiding assassination. In the days following the coup, armed thugs essentially controlled
the government and brutally intimidated any political resistance.
Inventing 'Facts'
But that reality had no place in Power's propaganda speech. Instead, she said:
"The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own accord, only hours
after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms.
"And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected Rada voted to strip
him of his powers including 36 of the 38 members of his own party in parliament at the time. Yanukovych then vanished for several
days, only to eventually reappear little surprise in Russia.
"As is often the case, these myths reveal more about the myth makers than they do about the truth. Moscow's fable was designed
to airbrush the Ukrainian people and their genuine aspirations and demands out of the Maidan, by claiming the movement was fueled
by outsiders.
"Yet, as you all know by living through it and as was clear even to those of us watching your courageous stand from afar the Maidan
was made in Ukraine. A Ukraine of university students and veterans of the Afghan war. Of Ukrainian, Russian, and Tatar speakers.
Of Christians, Muslims, and Jews. "
Power went on with her rhapsodic version of events: "Given the powerful interests that benefited from the corrupt system, achieving
a full transformation was always going to be an uphill battle. And that was before Russian troops occupied Crimea, something the
Kremlin denied at the time, but has since admitted; and it was before Russia began training, arming, bankrolling, and fighting alongside
its separatist proxies in eastern Ukraine, something the Kremlin continues to deny.
"Suddenly, the Ukrainian people faced a battle on two fronts: combating corruption and overhauling broken institutions on the
inside; while simultaneously defending against aggression and destabilization from the outside.
"I don't have to tell you the immense strain that these battles have placed upon you. You feel it in the young men and women,
including some of your family members and friends, who have volunteered or been drafted into the military people who could be helping
build up their nation, but instead are risking their lives to defend it against Russian aggression.
"You feel it in the conflict's impact on your country's economy as instability makes it harder for Ukrainian businesses to attract
foreign investment, deepens inflation, and depresses families' wages. It is felt in the undercurrent of fear in cities like Kharkiv
where citizens have been the victims of multiple bomb attacks, the most lethal of which killed four people, including two teenage
boys, at a rally celebrating the first anniversary of Euromaidan.
"And the impact is felt most directly by the people living in the conflict zone. According to the UN, at least 6,350 people have
been killed in the violence driven by Russia and the separatists including 625 women and children and an additional 1,460 people
are missing; 15,775 people have been wounded. And an estimated 2 million people have been displaced by this conflict. And the real
numbers of killed, missing, wounded, and displaced are likely higher, according to the UN, due to its limited access to areas controlled
by the separatists."
One-Sided Account
Pretty much everything in Power's propaganda speech was blamed on the Russians along with the ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians
resisting the imposition of the new U.S.-backed order. She also ignored the will of the people of Crimea who voted overwhelmingly
in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
The closest she came to criticizing the current regime in Kiev was to note that "investigations into serious crimes such as the
violence in the Maidan and in Odessa have been sluggish, opaque, and marred by serious errors suggesting not only a lack of competence,
but also a lack of will to hold the perpetrators accountable."
Yet, even there, Power failed to note the growing evidence that the neo-Nazis were likely behind the crucial sniper attacks on
Feb. 20, 2014, that killed both police and protesters and touched off the chaos that led to the coup two days later. [A worthwhile
documentary on this mystery is " Maidan Massacre ."]
Nor, did Power spell out that neo-Nazis from the Maidan set fire to the Trade Union Building in Odessa on May 2, 2014,
burning alive scores of ethnic Russians
while spray-painting the building with pro-Nazi graffiti, including hailing the "Galician SS," the Ukrainian auxiliary that helped
Adolf Hitler's SS carry out the Holocaust in Ukraine.
Listening to Power's speech you might not even have picked up that she was obliquely criticizing the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.
Also, by citing a few touching stories of pro-coup Ukrainians who had died in the conflict, Power implicitly dehumanized the far
larger number of ethnic Russians who opposed the overthrow of their elected president and have been killed by Kiev's brutal "anti-terrorism
operation."
Use of Propaganda
In my nearly four decades covering Washington, I have listened to and read many speeches like the one delivered by Samantha Power.
In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan would give similar propaganda speeches justifying the slaughter of peasants and workers in
Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, where the massacres of Mayan Indians were later deemed a "genocide." [See Consortiumnews.com's
" How Reagan Promoted Genocide
."]
Regardless of the reality on the ground, the speeches always made the U.S.-backed side the "good guys" and the other side the
"bad guys" even when "our side" included CIA-affiliated "death squads" and U.S.-equipped military forces slaughtering tens of thousands
of civilians.
During the 1990s, more propaganda speeches were delivered by President George H.W. Bush regarding Panama and Iraq and by President
Bill Clinton regarding Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Then, last decade, the American people were inundated with more propaganda rhetoric
from President George W. Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of the endless "war on terror."
Generally speaking, during much of his first term, Obama was more circumspect in his rhetoric, but he, too, has slid into propaganda-speak
in the latter half of his presidency as he shed his "realist" foreign policy tendencies in favor of "tough-guy/gal" rhetoric favored
by "liberal interventionists," such as Power, and neoconservatives, such as Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan (whom
a chastened Obama invited to
a White House lunch last year).
But the difference between the propaganda of Reagan, Bush-41, Clinton and Bush-43 was that it focused on conflicts in which the
Soviet Union or Russia might object but would likely not be pushed to the edge of nuclear war, nothing as provocative as what the
Obama administration has done in Ukraine, now including dispatching U.S. military advisers.
The likes of Power, Nuland and Obama are not just justifying wars that leave devastation, death and disorder in their wake in
disparate countries around the world, but they are fueling a war on Russia's border.
That was made clear by the end of Power's speech in which she declared: "Ukraine, you may still be bleeding from pain. An aggressive
neighbor may be trying to tear your nation to pieces. Yet you are strong and defiant. You, Ukraine, are standing tall for your freedom.
And if you stand tall together no kleptocrat, no oligarch, and no foreign power can stop you."
There is possibly nothing more reckless than what has emerged as Obama's late-presidential foreign policy, what amounts to a plan
to destabilize Russia and seek "regime change" in the overthrow of Russian President Putin.
Rather than take Putin up on his readiness to cooperate with Obama in trouble spots, such as the Syrian civil war and Iran's nuclear
program, "liberal interventionist" hawks like Power and neocons like Nuland with Obama in tow have chosen confrontation and have
used extreme propaganda to effectively shut the door on negotiation and compromise.
Yet, as with previous neocon/liberal-interventionist schemes, this one lacks on-the-ground realism. Even if it were possible to
so severely damage the Russian economy and to activate U.S.-controlled "non-governmental organizations" to help drive Putin from
office, that doesn't mean a Washington-friendly puppet would be installed in the Kremlin.
Another possible outcome would be the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist suddenly controlling the nuclear codes and willing
to use them. So, when ambitious ideologues like Power and Nuland get control of U.S. foreign policy in such a sensitive area, what
they're playing with is the very survival of life on planet Earth the ultimate genocide.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing
operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here .
incontinent reader , June 15, 2015 at 6:14 pm
It's too bad that people like Nuland and Power have not not been subjected to a retributive justice in which they would be
forced to feel the same pain that they inflict, or, if that is too much to ask, then just to 'disappear (quietly) in the sands
of time' to save their victims from more misery.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Roberto , June 15, 2015 at 10:03 pm
These dopes have no idea that the compensation is forthcoming.
I would like to propose a new lobby that would also be based on a non-address, X Street.
X Street recognizes that the wars fought by the United States since 2001 have brought no benefit to the American people and
have only resulted in financial ruin,
NATO no longer has any raison d’etre and is needlessly provoking the Russians through its expansion. X Street calls on the
United States to dissolve the alliance.
X Street recognizes that America’s lopsided support of the state of Israel has made the United States a target of terrorism,
has weakened the US’s international standing and damaged its reputation, and has negatively impacted on the American economy.
Washington will no longer use its veto power to protect Israeli interests in the UN and other international bodies.
The United States will publicly declare its knowledge that Israel has a nuclear arsenal and will ask the Israeli government
to join the NPT regime and subject its program to IAEA inspection.
X Street believes that nation building and democracy promotion by the United States have been little more than CIA/MOSSAD covert
actions by another name that have harmed America’s reputation and international standing.
The National Endowment for Democracy should be abolished immediately.
I would think that most people have heard of near death experiences.
One feature of such experiences which has sometimes been reported, and which I find very interesting, is that of the life review,
which focuses on the deeds a person has done throughout his or her life, the motives of the deeds, and the effects of the deeds
on others. It has been reported, for instance, that people have re-experienced their deeds not only from their own perspective
but from the perspective of others whom one's deeds have affected.
There is a youtube video about this, titled The Golden Rule Dramatically Illustrated, and featuring NDE researcher Dr. Kenneth
Ring.
There are no such thing as "liberal war hawks", their policies simply based on idiocy where as the result they need to be called
"liberals", depending on kind of government that govern a corrupt and bankrupt system. American capitalism is one of those system.
These people simply lacking a vision for their understanding that they are "liberal". They might be a social liberalists when
it come to people's rights in living the way of life they chose, otherwise it was Bill Clinton who used such "liberal" idea by
politicalizing using liberalism for his gain, these people follow the same path, but they will backstab people as they have in
the past and as they do now.
michael , June 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
If a coup had not been instigated by the west on Russia's border, installing Nazis a different more positive outcome might
be available, I am quite sure there are Ukrainians who did not want this and wanted a more independent Ukraine, but that is not
what happened! How were the Russians supposed to react? The United States has 1000 military bases around the world, border most
countries, completely encircle Iran, press right up to Russia's borders and encircle China. Again how are the Russians supposed
to React? If this was Mexico the place would be decimated by the Americans and laid to waste just like Iraq!
hbm , June 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm
Looney bleeding-heart Irishwoman with husband Arch-Neocon lunatic Cass Sunstein shaping her opinions and directing her fanaticism.
That's all one really needs to know.
Nibs , June 16, 2015 at 12:28 pm
Exactly, everywhere there is a goy neocon, just look a little further for the malign influence. You can always find it. Soros
was here too, also in the attempted "colour revolution" in Macedonia. They intend to make out like bandits, big big money. Of
course, as mentioned elsewhere, they are physical cowards and prefer to send ordinary Americans to do their fighting and bleeding
for them.
It's somewhat startling after Iraq that they are still there.
But, and forgive the conspiracy angle, I don't believe this is unconnected to the Epstein sex scandal: just see who visited and
is therefore target of blackmail.
Paulrevere01 , June 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
and this warmonger-doppleganger-to-Nuland-Kagen is married to Grand-Censor-Cass-des-Hubris-Sunstein more black eyes for Yale
and Harvard.
dahoit , June 16, 2015 at 11:12 am
Yes,the Zionist poison ivy league strikes again,with more Zionist stool pigeons to come.Close down education for sale vs.for
knowledge,it produces zombie quislings.
Larry , June 15, 2015 at 7:12 pm
. and even if the U.S. neocon policy in Ukraine succeeds and a shooting war with Russia is somehow avoided, then the American
neocons will still neither be sated or placated. Like the bloodthirsty jackals they are, these neocons will be only emboldened,
and their next coup in Russia's natural security sphere will be the straw that breaks the nuclear camels' backs. They must be
deterred or stopped.
In some tabulations the neocon hijacking of US policy on behalf of Israel has resulted in American gifts to Iran of Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and quite likely Israel. And that's for starters. The rest will implode and do we then have a Persian
Empire.
It looks like a lot of clouds gathering on the horizon, and I cannot say that I find much fault with Pillar's assessment.
The stakes are too high and for all the macho talk all are rightfully very weary of lighting the match.
I rather doubt that there would be much left for anyone to add to their empire. Miles of ruins and deserts, glazed by nuclear
fires do not make for very useful Imperial digs.
I just pray that we are both wrong.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Liberal interventionism is simply left-wing neocon thinking.
“Many eyewitnesses among the Maidan protesters reported snipers firing from the Hotel Ukraina during the massacre of the
protesters, specifically, about killing eight of them. Bullet holes in trees and electricity poles on the site of the massacre
and on the walls of Zhovtnevyi Palace indicate that shots came from the direction of the hotel. There are several similar recorded
testimonies of the eyewitnesses among the protesters about shooters in October Palace and other Maidan-controlled buildings.â€
The “Snipers’ Massacre†on the Maidan in Ukraine
By Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.
Boris M Garsky , June 15, 2015 at 8:06 pm
There is nothing to say about Powers; no doubt where she gets her marching orders and script. However, there is no excuse for
being ignorant on the topic of her rantings. I challenge anyone, anywhere to spontaneously assemble and move 100,000 people, even
a few blocks, on 24 hours notice. If you can do it, you are the court magician exemplar. Can't be done. Never has been done; it
takes months to years of preparations and organization before implementation. Yanuckovich was the target of assassination; they
weren't taking chances. No doubt that the Russians told him to skedaddle; that his life was in danger. Doesn't sound spontaneous
to me; sounds like a well planned operation gone wrong- right initially, but wrong eventually. I think that Obama is simply posturing
until the west can figure out how to extricate themselves from another fine mess they got themselves into- AGAIN!
F. G. Sanford , June 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm
I remember during my college days watching "student government" personalities – usually rich kids with no real problems – hurl
themselves into impassioned frenzies over some issue or another. Usually, they were political science(sic) or psychology majors
who were also active in the Speech and Theater Department. The defining characteristic of their existence was to obtain a podium
from which to make impassioned pleas to their fellow students in an effort to demonstrate a proclivity for "leadership". Almost
any issue would do. Samantha Power reminds me of one of those students – ostensibly seeking a role which, if she could have her
way, would make her the prime catalyst in a pivotal issue at the epicenter of a maelstrom that steers the course of human history.
That kind of learned, practiced, studied and rehearsed narcissism doesn't always work out so well. Maybe because the most successful
examples are actually clinical sufferers of…real narcissism. When Power's 'facts' are compared to reality, the obvious conclusions
suggest a range of interpretations from delusional psychosis to criminal perjury. Or, is this a carefully crafted strategy? "Yats"
has recently resorted to the last rabbit he can pull out of a hat: he's turned on the printing presses to pay the bills, and a
currency collapse is imminent. The Nazi factions are impatient with the regime's lack of progress, the people are disgruntled,
those two million refugees have mostly fled to Russia for protection, Northern Europe is being inundated with prostitutes, drug
dealers and the creme de la creme of organized crime from the former Warsaw Pact countries, and in the South, refugees from NATO
destabilizations in North Africa and the Middle East have become an explosive issue. Racism, nationalism and the resurgence of
openly fascist political activity is burgeoning. Europe is boiling with rage. Has Power actually seen the writing on the wall?
If so, why not an impassioned campaign to remind the Ukrainians they have broken institutions, corrupt oligarchs, unscrupulous
kleptocrats, internal corruption and foreign aggression working against them? And by the way, they've failed to adequately investigate
those Nazi atrocities. None of this could POSSIBLY be the fault of U.S. meddling or failed diplomacy. Nope, they brought it on
themselves, but we did everything we could to try and help. The makings of TOTAL collapse are at hand, and one little fillip could
bring down the whole house of cards. So, "You Ukrainians need to stand tall for your freedoms", and if anything goes wrong, you
have nobody to blame but yourselves. Maybe Sammy isn't so delusional after all.
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 1:01 pm
She's not delusional, she's just channeling Aleksander Mikhaajlovich Bezobrazov. I guess that does make Obama the Tsar.
Mark , June 15, 2015 at 8:53 pm
All anyone needs to understand about American foreign policy is that anything, including genocide, is not only acceptable but
promoted if it serves "America's corporate or favored campaign funding special interests". The only real principle in play for
all colluding parties -- corporate, mass media, complicit foreign governments (sycophants) and both major domestic political parties
-- is to "win" by compromising or sacrificing everything and everyone required to serve the insatiable hunger for ungodley wealth
and (abusive) power accumulation.
The entire American culture has been corrupted by propaganda and what is irrational human nature and instinct concerning these
matters -- to be accepted among our peers by following the heard -- this reality is being used by the "ruling class" to play the
public like a disposable three dollar fiddle, while they, our "rulers", impose death and destruction along with economic and military
tyranny, directly or by proxy, wherever and whenever they can get away with it.
Bob Loblaw , June 15, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Two words
Electromagnetic Pulse
One well placed warhead will cripple us to the point that we destroy ourselves.
While crude islamists can't pull it off a Russian device is within reach.
Abe , June 15, 2015 at 10:48 pm
As a human-rights entrepreneur who is also a tireless advocate of war, Samantha Power is not aberrant. Elite factions of the
human-rights industry were long ago normalized within the tightly corseted spectrum of American foreign policy.
Power advocates for what she calls "tough, principled, and engaged diplomacy." A more accurate set of adjectives would be "belligerent,
hypocritical, and domineering." The thrust of her work is to make perpetual war possible by designating genocide – real or merely
ideologically constructed – the supreme international crime, instead of war itself. (Under current international law war itself
is the "supreme international crime.") That way the U.S. can perpetually make war for the noblest of purposes without regard for
anachronisms like national sovereignty. Is it any wonder Democrats love her?
The military deployment of US-NATO forces coupled with “non-conventional warfare†â€"including covert intelligence operations,
economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime changeâ€â€" is occurring simultaneously in several regions of the world.
Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. War has
been provided with a humanitarian mandate under NATO’s “Responsibility to Protect†(R2P). The victims of U.S. led wars are
presented as the perpetrators of war.
It sounds to me that these neocons have 2 things in common. They were all born post WW II and have not experienced any war
at home and grew up in a nice suburban area without street crimes. They NEVER were confronted with families who lost their loved
ones in US 'lost' wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan that were initiated WITHOUT UN approval and brought home young soldiers who
had lost their limps and were handicapped for the rest of their lives. But just to keep US defence industry turning out hefty
profits.
Secondly, they have watched to many Hollywood movies showing the superior US army beating the 'evil' empire (Reagan) meaning
Soviet Union. USA never honoured their agreements with Gorbachev to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. President Putin learned his
lessons, he built a strong military with technological advanced equipment so his country will NOT be run over again by the West
such as Napoleon and Hitler did murdering 25 million Russians. President Putin and the Russians want to live in peace they have
suffered too much in the past.
It's US and its vassal NATO aggression in the World and now in Ukraine that make the Russian show their power and demonstrating
'don't fool with us' . US MSM propaganda in Europe is losing its effects and people realizing US geopolitical or colonization
aggression in the world while losing US dominance as well. Like Abraham Lincoln said: You can lie to some people all the time
and you can lie to all the people some time, but you cannot lie to all the people all the time! However with today's powerful
media TV and radio it will take some more time. But Russia's RT News is changing this and gives the audience News contradicting
US MSM propaganda such as NYT and WP which have been brainwashing the public for so long at the discretion of Washington's neocons.
And US taxpayers are paying the bill, wake up America!
Peter Loeb , June 16, 2015 at 6:46 am
DISTRACTION FROM PALESTINIAN/ISRAELI CONFLICT
Excellent profiles and analyses by Mr. Parry as we have all come
to expect.
"[Power] added that the United Nations focus on Ukraine in the
Security Council.." from Parry above.
Here one MUST add the unsaid "and never, never on Palestine/
Israel"! After all, the US has continued time and again to block
investigation by the Security Council of Israeli actions in that
sphere. Evidently Israel maintains according to Power and
many others that Israel with US support are by definition exempt
from any and all rules of international law, application to save
lives in Palestine, attempts to establish a Mideast Nuclear
Free Zone and much much more. The distraction provided
by Ukraine is not only significant for the people of Ukraine but
is cleverly designed to distract all world and domestic opinion
from the atrocities carried on daily by Israel in Palestine both
past, present and future.
-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA
Gregory Kruse , June 16, 2015 at 10:28 am
She's like John Bolton in drag.
Abe , June 16, 2015 at 5:52 pm
She is the walrus, goo goo g'joob.
Sammy too "seems averse to compromise, and is apparently committed to the belief that the U.N. and international law undermine
U.S. interests" (aka Israeli interests) http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/03/21/boltonism
"“Remarks such as the references to the 1967 borders show Obama’s continuing lack of real appreciation for Israel’s security.â€
-- Bolton, 2011, interview for National Review online
"There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Never.†-- Power, 2015, speech at American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference
ltr , June 16, 2015 at 11:02 am
What a thoroughly amoral person Samantha Power is, all pretense, all hypocrisy, all for selectively determining which lives
are worth allowing.
Wm. Boyce , June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am
Another example of the lack of differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the empire's foreign policy.
It's all about controlling regions and resources, and fueling the U.S. arms industry.
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
Samantha Power: "The facts tell a different story. As you remember well, then-President Yanukovych abandoned Kyiv of his own
accord, only hours after signing an agreement with opposition leaders that would have led to early elections and democratic reforms."
There are some glaring omissions in Power's 'facts'. She doesn't explain why Yanukovych suddenly fled Kyiv, so soon after an
agreement with opposition leaders that allowed him to remain as president for several more months.
She didn't mention the rejection of that agreement by the far-right militias who threatened to remove Yanukovych from office
by force if he did not resign by 10 am that day.
That threat might explain his sudden departure. It also might also indicate that his departure wasn't really "of his own accord".
Brendan , June 16, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Samantha Power: "And it was only after Yanukovych fled the capital that 328 of the 447 members of the democratically-elected
Rada voted to strip him of his powers "
The problem with that was that the members of parliament did not have any authority to strip the president of his powers in
the way they did. The only possible conditions to remove a presidential from office are listed in the Ukrainian constitution:
Article 108. The President of Ukraine shall exercise his powers until the assumption of office by the newly elected President
of Ukraine.
The authority of the President of Ukraine shall be subject to an early termination in cases of:
1) resignation;
2) inability to exercise presidential authority for health reasons;
3) removal from office by the procedure of impeachment;
4) his/her death.
Yanukovych was not dead and neither was he unable to exercise his presidential authority due to health reasons. He never resigned,
and in fact continued to state that he was the only legitimate president.
He was not removed from office by the procedure of impeachment, which includes a number of stages, as described in Article
111 of the constitution (see link below). The decision on the impeachment must be adopted by at least three-quarters of the members
of parliament. The number given by Samantha Power was less than three-quarters.
Samantha Power, along with the vast majority of the western media, described the overthrow of President Yanukovych as a normal
democratic vote by parliament. To use Mrs Power's words, "The facts tell a different story". The facts say that it was an unconstitutional
coup.
All of these conflicts seem to be designed to clean out, not only the people, but entire cultures in the regions.
Americans should take heed. What we see the oligarchic criminals in the U.S. doing overseas, is coming to a town near you,
or maybe your own town. Why else do you think they have been dismantling the Constitution and militarizing communities? It looks
like it will be sooner than expected, too.
hammersmith , June 23, 2015 at 10:31 pm
The Bush administration was "little boys on Big Wheels," as one former member described it; The Obama administration is little
girls on Big Wheels.
Nikki Haley has erupted in another fiery Russophobic rant, warning that Russia will "never
be America's friend." Moscow can try to behave "like a regular country," but the US will "slap
them when we need to," Haley said.
The US ambassador to the UN is not known for her friendly stance toward Moscow, but her new
take on US-Russia relations stands out among even her most rabid ramblings. Speaking at Duke
University in North Carolina on Friday, Haley admitted that friendly relations with Russia is
an unlikely prospect, adding that the Trump team has done more against Moscow than any other
administration since Ronald Reagan's tenure.
"Russia's never going to be our friend," Haley told students at a Q&A session,
responding to a question about "holding Russia
accountable" for alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The diplomat said
Washington still works with Moscow "when we need to, and we slap them when we need to."
She then raised the stakes further: "Everybody likes to listen to the words. I'm going to
tell you – look at the actions," Haley urged. "We expelled 60 Russian diplomats/spies, we
have armed Ukraine so that they can defend themselves," she added.
According to the UN envoy, the US is doing "two things Russia would never want us to do,"
namely enlarging the military and expanding its energy policy. "So, this president has done
more against Russia than any president since Reagan," she asserted.
"You haven't seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia. You will continue
to see that play out," she stressed.
Cooling down the degree of Russia-bashing in her speech, Haley said the US and Russia do
cooperate on Afghanistan and Africa, looking out for areas of mutual interest. Meanwhile, she
claimed, "our relations with Russia depend solely on Russia."
Nikki Haley has erupted in another fiery Russophobic rant, warning that Russia will "never
be America's friend." Moscow can try to behave "like a regular country," but the US will "slap
them when we need to," Haley said.
The US ambassador to the UN is not known for her friendly
stance toward Moscow, but her new take on US-Russia relations stands out among even her most
rabid ramblings. Speaking at Duke University in North Carolina on Friday, Haley admitted that
friendly relations with Russia is an unlikely prospect, adding that the Trump team has done
more against Moscow than any other administration since Ronald Reagan's tenure.
"Russia's never going to be our friend," Haley told students at a Q&A session,
responding to a question about "holding Russia accountable" for alleged meddling in the 2016
presidential election. The diplomat said Washington still works with Moscow "when we need to,
and we slap them when we need to."
She then raised the stakes further: "Everybody likes to listen to the words. I'm going to
tell you – look at the actions," Haley urged. "We expelled 60 Russian diplomats/spies, we
have armed Ukraine so that they can defend themselves," she added.
"You haven't seen the end of what this administration will do to Russia. You will continue
to see that play out," she stressed. Cooling down the degree of Russia-bashing in her speech,
Haley said the US and Russia do cooperate on Afghanistan and Africa, looking out for areas of
mutual interest. Meanwhile, she claimed, "our relations with Russia depend solely on
Russia."
The topic of Russia-bashing and Moscow's alleged interference in US democratic processes
seems far away from dwindling, despite no solid evidence being presented so far to the public.
Moscow has repeatedly brushed off the claims. "Until we see facts, everything else will be just
blather," Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in Munich last month.
However, there could be signs of improvement on the horizon. Donald Trump has recently
suggested meeting Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Washington, DC. In March, he said the two
leaders "will be meeting in the not too distant future to discuss the arms race which is
getting out of control." Putin and Trump have so far met twice.
The first meeting occurred during the G20 summit in Germany last July, and the second took
place on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vietnam in November.
President Putin, as well as several Russian officials, has continuously signaled Moscow's
readiness to improve ties with the US and the West, based on trust and respect.
Bolton would be on with this idea. I expect Trump go ahead with a military bombing of
nuclear reactor sites and Government/military sites as envisage by Pompeo. They dare not try
for a full invasion as they will most likely lose. What will be Iran's reaction be?
What could Iran do? They might get Hezbollah to initiate contact with Israel. Try to sink
US navy assets where ever they are. Spread the campaign to Afghanistan. Attack Saudi Arabia
with missiles. However if the US peruses this course I believe it will be a brief attack
lassting 2/3 weeks, whereby a brokered peace to stop US action. But I could be wrong.
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Uri Friedman reviews
Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the
negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:
The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end
Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy;
it's surrender."
Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he
understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal
because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions
on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up
absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails
among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.
Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear
program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at
significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama
administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations
would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist.
There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and
allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has
nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes
ill for talks with North Korea.
"... The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia. ..."
For what its worth: there was a very long and detailed analysis by the Frankfurter Allgmeine
Zeitung yesterday regarding Tillersons dismissal. You can take this analysis as something
like the "official" German position as FAZ journalists are the equivalent of Pravda
journalists. That is fully in the know but only writing what is desired.
The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was
displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards
Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is
then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility
towards Russia.
Interestingly enough today Germany´s defense minister who is a close confident of
Merkel echoed the outrage about the alleged nerve gas attack but called for a "UN
investigation". That is she didn´t endorse the British claim.
Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from
Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t
blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of
course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2.
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal
tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what
led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling
all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.
The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion.
According
to The Atlantic,
The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the
statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see
it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein
himself has been fired since making the statement.
Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let
it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that
implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in
CounterPunch :
The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless
the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."
And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating
US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom
NPR glowingly
described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer
in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard
line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back
off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've
had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We
have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."
Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved
her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida
suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR
reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress
called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture
center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped
up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt
it was their duty."
Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts
to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins
wrote in the New
Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,
When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs,
not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past,
as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision.
After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.
When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted (
March 13, 2018 )
Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs
without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin
complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7
Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides
black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's
bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail
for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.
The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain
and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of
torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't
let things like due process get in the way.
Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy.
Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss.
Join the debate on Facebook More articles
by: Geoff Dutton
Geoff Duttonis an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of
reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in
Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.
Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!
Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned
post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.
This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find
it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin
in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even
there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the
other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions
between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle
jerk.
Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to
bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less.
Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't
intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.
Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous
psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and
Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.
The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.
Hmmmm.....let's see. Pompeo hates Julian Assange. Assange has told us a lot of truth but
won't even consider that 911 was an inside job. Pompeo hates Iran and Assad, but he's not
about 911 truth at all either. The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy. Trump
hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the
Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition. In the midst of all these powerful world
leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally
fucked. And I don't even especially like Rosie O'Donnell. Doesn't seem likely we will avoid a
catastrophic war. What a world.
Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit
that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition.In the midst of all these
powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we
are royally fucked.
One Donald J Trump was interviewed on TV on the day of 9/11. He said that's not the way
planes hit buildings. There were explosives of some sort involved. Moreover, the same Donald
J Trump as a contender for the Republican nomination in the debate in South Carolina in
February 2016 stated that if he won the presidency he would publish the secret documents
about 9/11.
You have to be paying attention to figure out who Trump really is. Why is that? It is
because Judaia as a conscious policy of that quasi-state has for long had total control of
the minds of the whole West. The brains of Americans have been turned to oatmeal (as Russians
put it) and most of what Trump says has to be oatmeal-to-oatmeal. Trump's brilliance is never
challenging directly the memes (such as 9/11 or the Holocaust or false flag shootings) that
Judaia has so laboriously constructed. That would be foolish. Rather, he takes one strand of
received discourse and short circuits it with another under high voltage. Only rarely and
briefly does Trump address clued-in supporters directly (perhaps he's doing it indirectly
through Q Anon). You have to be paying attention.
A lot of Trump administration double-talk is a game, his way of strongly playing a weak
hand. The anti-Iran bit seems to be a key gambit, going all the way back to Flynn
co-authoring an anti-Iran book with Neocon Ledeen. But Tillerson seems to have turned traitor
by taking over the script. Declaring that America was going go hang on to territory in Syria
was not a 'globalist' gambit in the script. Trump had to tweet that defeating ISIS was
America's only aim in Syria and that had been almost accomplished. Similarly, a limited
anti-Russia posture is necessary to deal with the Muller caper. But supporting the Empire's
Russian poisoning absurdity seems not to be where Trump wants America to be. Tillerson had to
go.
If Pompeo is talking a load of shit, and sounding surprisingly uneducsted for someone who
was number one at West Point and an editor (unlike Obama, under his own steam) at the Harvard
Law Review, be sure there is a game involved.
I instinctively like Trump, and have over a long period, Maybe Trump is at the head of a
huge world-historical change. It's looking good, actually, and I'm willing to wait and
see.
"... All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice ..."
Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech
rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as
editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth
about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly
underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that
federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks,
possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage
Act.
All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start
of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA
incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions
of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which
it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed
the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with
computer viruses.
When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher
such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or
should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state
hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive
honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history
by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.
President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or
traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration
when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is
itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should
heed that advice .
Well I said: "I hope that this is true but I cannot discount the other possibility that
Trump has once again been fooled by the intelligence and the media into appointing a tool of
the deep state to replace Tillerson. He was fooled in Syria and the World applauded or rather
the World media applauded loudly. Hopefully he was not fooled by that contrived story. If
that is the case then it is bad news for all of us and might lead to further hostilities
against Russia."
Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk who will align
to blame Russia for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Further he has been a
strong critic of the nuclear deal with Iran forged under Obama and has also been a strong
republican supporter of every republican strategy for national defense including keeping
Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely etc. This would support my doubts that the appointment of
Secretary of State Pompeo would do much to ratchet down international tensions in the hot
spots around the World where the US has chosen to portray our "enemies" as military targets
to be conquered rather than other nations with their own sovereign rights to be dealt with
through diplomacy.
The most alarming idea is to launch a war with Iran since they have negotiated a nuclear
disarmament strategy with the Obama administration leaving them in a precarious situation of
being vulnerable to a change in strategy by the US of negotiation towards a threat of armed
force intervention coming from the US. Trump calls the Iran deal a terrible deal and so does
Pompeo. How it is a terrible deal seems to be the same accusation that the US launched
against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is only a terrible deal for Iran as it was for Iraq to
believe that they could disarm under UN supervision in the hopes it would prevent an attack
by the US.
I fear that the lessons of the potential new anti Iranian strategy to cancel out our deals
with Iran will only convince the North Koreans that any pursuit of a peace with the USA will
ultimately result in our reneging on the deal at the first arrival of our stated goals to get
NK to disarm and will turn on them even if they comply with western demands that they must
dismantle their nuclear arsenals.
The Iranian Nuclear deal is in peril with the appointment of Pompeo and the result will be
that North Korea will see no advantage in cooperating with an adversary which on the one hand
forges peace treaties and on the other hand revokes them by the politically shifting winds in
Washington headed by a president who cannot see the forest from the trees and is easily
influenced by people he "connects with" as though that is reason enough to surround himself
with those people and appoint them to high positions.
The politically shifting instability in Washington with the firings of high officials
alone would be reason enough for any foreign nation to doubt the credibility of any policy
being put forth. Stability is what is essential to create the foundation for trust. Without
an honest and consistent foreign policy it will be impossible to gain the trust of foreign
leaders. As long as the administration is led by the nose by the media and acts in
unpredictable ways there can be no shared basis for trust which is essential for peace.
What we have in Washington is the expansion of domestic political unrest and the
contention of our national elections flaring over into blame of foreign influences and the
externalization of blame for our current sociopolitical divide.
This is the fertile ground laced with the fertilizer for war or at the least a military
buildup to war.
There is no greater threat than a World Superpower nation that shifts almost weekly on its
policies and has open disputes with its appointed leaders which results in that nation
repeatedly reshuffling the cards and changing its positions on foreign policy. I pray that
the current leadership will come to grips with its own internal struggles and find a reasoned
path towards maintaining the fragile peace that we all depend on.
Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!
Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody
has baggage, everybody is compromised.
This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump
(or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the
real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified
at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue
the inevitable endless circle jerk.
Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them
who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come
down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.
Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also
know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.
The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. Much worse. For all his flaws, Rex Tillerson had a
surprisingly sane take on the Middle East, at least relatively. He was known for being against
the idiotic Saudi-UAE attempt blockade of Qatar, as well as in favor of keeping the Iran deal
active. Pompeo shares no such sentiments.
Pompeo, named as his pick for secretary of state by Trump on Tuesday shortly after he
announced Tillerson's departure on Twitter, has taken a notoriously tough stance on Iran in
the past in his erstwhile role as director of the CIA.
"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing
with a CIA medal last year.
back" its 2015 nuclear deal.
"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing
with a CIA medal last year.
... ... ...
But there's more
In November 2016, when Pompeo was appointed to lead the CIA, he warned that Tehran is
"intent of destroying America" and called the nuclear deal "disastrous." He added that he was
looking forward to "rolling back" the agreement.
Differences
of opinion over how Iran should be treated are said to be the source of discord between
Trump and Tillerson, whose firing followed a clash over the nuclear deal, the president said
Tuesday.
"If you look at the Iran deal I think it's terrible and I guess he thought it was OK We
weren't really thinking the same," Trump said in a statement outside the White House. He said
he and Tillerson got on "quite well" but had "different mindsets."
Iran has been increasingly marginalized during the Trump administration, which has sided
with Saudi Arabia in the regional battle for influence in the Middle East.'
Here's the bottom line. As I outlined multiple times last year, Trump is determined to have
a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in
place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation.
Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months
ahead.
I believe this forthcoming war against Iran will have almost no international support.
Probably just autocratic regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as
Israel and possibly the UK depending on who's Prime Minister when it gets going. The rest of
the world will be against it, which will lead to spectacular failure.
It's become increasingly clear that a huge military error, such as a new major confrontation
in the Middle East is what will spell the end of the U.S. empire. Such a confrontation is now
increasingly likely with Tillerson out of the picture
Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year
CIA careerist who
ran a torture black site in Thailand .
... ... ...
Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."
* * *
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit our Support Page to show your
appreciation for independent content creators.
Pompeo is in for a rude awakening in the diplomatic arena if he tries to spar with Lavrov.
Lavrov IMO will bloody Pomepo's nose before he knows what hit him.
J,
Haspel isn't alone in her views on torture - according to your link Mattis, Trump and Pompeo
also think waterboarding is an excellent intelligence tool.
According to your article Pompeo answered to Feinstein's torture criticism that agents who
had tortured people were " heroes, not pawns in some liberal game. "
*sob* ... poor heroes ... *sob*
Apparently it was all that heroism that made Haspel destroy evidence about the CIA torture
site in Tailand which she led.
One of the men, known as Abu Zubayda, was waterboarded 83 times in one month and was
slammed into walls by the head. He was deprived of sleep and kept in a coffin-like box.
Interrogators later decided he didn't have any useful information.
ProPublica found that Haspel personally signed cables to CIA headquarters that detailed
Zubayda's interrogation.
CIA videos of the torture were destroyed in 2005, on the orders of a cable drafted by
Haspel.
Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd
and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.
Where's Jim Jones when you need him to serve up some of his koolaid to the numerous
politicos and propagandists pushing the Russiagate Big Lie, for they surely deserve several
pitchers full each.
Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first
meeting with Lavrov or Putin.
The sooner Corbyn is able to become British PM, the better for all excepting the
corrupt.
Looks like Tillerson was yet another Big Lie junkie whose entire worldview is based on bullshit
Notable quotes:
"... Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective. ..."
"... Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes. ..."
"... This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia. ..."
"... The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...? ..."
"... I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians. ..."
Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to Rex Tillerson
for his service! Gina Haspel will become the new Director of the CIA, and the first woman so chosen. Congratulations to all!
According to the anti Russian propagandists
(vid) Tillerson got the job because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was in good standing with Putin. The same people
now claim that Tillerson was fired from his job
because Trump loves Russia and Tillerson was not in good standing with Putin.
Neither is correct. The plan to oust Tillerson and elevate Pompeo to State has been rumored and written about
for several
month . The plan was "developed by John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff". It had nothing to do with Russia.
Tillerson never got traction as Secretary of State. Congress disliked him for cutting down some State Department programs. Trump
overruled him publicly several times.
There is some contradiction in the statements coming from the White House and the State Department. According
to the Washington Post:
Trump last Friday asked Tillerson to step aside, and the embattled top diplomat cut short his trip to Africa on Monday to return
to Washington.
Last Friday Tillerson suddenly
fell ill while traveling
in Africa and canceled several scheduled events.
... ... ...
Thus ends the 2018 insurrection at State.
With Tillerson leaving Secretary of Defense Mattis is losing
an ally in the cabinet:
[I]t starts with me having breakfast every week with Secretary of State Tillerson. And we talk two, three times a day, sometimes.
We settle all of our issues between he and I, and then we walk together into the White House meetings. That way, State and Defense
are together.
Mattis sometimes calming influence over Trump on military issues will now become less effective.
CIA head Pompeo, the new Secretary of State, is a neoconservative with a
racist anti-Muslim
attitude and a
special hate
for Iran which he
compared
to ISIS . That he will now become Secretary of State is a bad sign for the nuclear agreement with Iran. The Europeans especially
should take note of that and should stop to look for a compromise with Trump on the issue. The deal is now dead. There is
no chance that a compromise will happen.
The new CIA director Gina Haspel is
well
known for actively directing and participating in the torture of prisoners at 'black sites':
Beyond all that, she played a vital role in the destruction of interrogation videotapes that showed the torture of detainees both
at the black site she ran and other secret agency locations. The concealment of those interrogation tapes, which violated multiple
court orders as well as the demands of the 9/11 commission and the advice of White House lawyers, was condemned as "obstruction"
by commission chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane.
Haspel would be in jail if former president Barack Obama had not decided against prosecuting the CIA torture crimes. Torturing
prisoners is a war crime. Obstruction of courts and destruction of evidence are likewise crimes.
Both, Pompeo and Haspel, will need to be confirmed by Congress. Both will receive a significant number of 'yes'-votes from the
Democratic side of the aisle.
I think last straw to fire him been TRex stance toward russians -give up Crimea and we cease sanction(WHAT A JOKE) same toward
eastern republics of Ukraine LNR,DPR..good move VSGPDJT !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is getting messy for the empire. Trump wants to attack Iran and be friends with Russia. The US neo-cons want to attack both
Iran and Russia. UK and France want to be friends with Iran and attack Russia.
The current anti Russia propaganda ["axis of evil" ] - Haley, Macron, May. Veto wielding members of the UNSC Russia, China vs US, France, UK...?
Poor Syria. At least one more fierce year of war. But more likely, endless 2,3,4 more years of war.
Israel and US are getting the rebels in Daraa (DEZ #4) primed to start up fighting again. I think the US, UK and Israel want to battle Russia in Syria. There will be more collateral damage done to Russians.
(My notes)
Tillerson says:
- got call today, afternoon from president, also spoke to Kelly (implies that this was the firing)
- hopes for smooth transition
- Deputy Sec State Sullivan will be acting Sec State
- Tillerson job officially terminates March 31
to DoD and State:
- bound by office oath, support constitution, ...
- always stay by oath, (sounds crying)
to people in uniform:
- great relationship State DOD - thanks Mattis and Dunford, all soldiers
work review:
- DPRK pressure campaign was success
- Afghanistan commitment also
- Syria, Iraq - work remains
- nothing goes without allies, partner
- work to be done on China and "troubling behavior" of Russia
- predicts more isolation if Russia doesn't knee
- nothing on Iran
Didn't say thank you to Trump. Emphasized oath to constitution, not to president. Nothing on Iran, Saudis or Palestine.
This was a f*** you to the White House and its priorities. The endorsement by name of Mattis and Dunlap makes them targets.
A Professor for political science from the United Arab Emirates just posted this:
"History will record that a GCC country had a role in the sacking of the foreign minister of a great power, and this is only the
beginning of more"
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative
for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of
US foreign policy under the Obama administration,
particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.
... ... ...
He has
cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested
in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based
conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by
liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.
Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial
view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.
The Senate approved his nomination 66-32.
The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as
secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and
Putin."
Sanctions on Russia are being ignored. China is investing its US Trillions. Under US imposed
sanctions, ExxonMobil withdrew and China said "Thank You" and took the partnership.
Chinese state-controlled Huarong Asset Management has bought a 36.2 percent stake in the unit
of CEFC China Energy through which CEFC is acquiring a $9.1 billion stake in Russian oil
giant Rosneft.
According to CEFC filings seen by Reuters, Huarong has bought the stake in CEFC in two
tranches, one in December and one in February. Huarong is controlled by China's Ministry of
Finance.
In September, CEFC Energy announced plans to acquire 14.16 percent of Rosneft shares from
Glencore and the Qatar Investment Authority (QIA).
"The final structure of Rosneft's shareholders has been formed," Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin
told Rossiya 24 television.
As part of a long-term agreement, Rosneft and CEFC Energy inked a deal on crude oil
deliveries in 2017. According to the agreement, the Russian oil major will supply CEFC with
60.8 million tons of oil annually until 2023.
The agreement covers the development of exploration and production projects in Siberia.
The two companies plan to cooperate in refining, petrochemicals and crude trading.
Could Tillerson dismissal be related to:
"@realDonaldTrump son-in-law Jared #Kushner told Trump to back the #Saudi/#UAE blockade on
#Qatar after Qatar refused to invest in Kushner's indebted property at 666 Fifth Avenue in
New York City."
When this blockade happened, Tillerson supported Qatar and clashed with Kushner. Now that
Kushner's loan issue is public, could Trump be lashing out at Tillerson, could someone at
State have publicized the loan?
Posted by: likklemore | Mar 13, 2018 7:48:34 PM | 69
" Betcha Rex is so so sorry he went to D.C. "
Nah I wouldn't be fretting 'bout l'il rexie; these 1%ers don't make a move unless they
know there is gonna be a top earner or 57 in it for themselves.
I have no doubt tillerson pulled off a mob of smart (for himself n maybe exxonMobil) deals
whilst SecState. That is what 'these people' do.
Tillerson is more than enough evidence for the premise that the first move of any truly
revolutionary political movement must be to put the entire elite up against a wall and shoot
them.
For, as debilitating as such a move can be for the moral hygiene of a revolution, history
has taught us that allowing sociopathic scum such as he to keep breathing, ultimately costs
the lives of millions of ordinary decent, non-sociopathic humans. Sad but true.
In case it is not clear, the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is a neocon. Strong evidence
of this unfortunate fact is his speech on January 17, 2018 at Stanford's Hoover Institute.
After warmly acknowledging his debt to Dr. Condoleezza Rice and George Shultz, Tillerson goes
into his " Remarks on the Way Forward for
the United States Regarding Syria."
What do we hear? " it is crucial to our national defense to maintain a military and
diplomatic presence in Syria, to help bring an end to that conflict, and assist the Syrian
people as they chart a course to achieve a new political future." He wants the US to stay in
Syria indefinitely, its purposes being to defend the American nation, to cause the war to end,
and to create a new government/state in Syria.
We've heard the same neocon language in the past 17 years regarding Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and other countries. None of these countries are "crucial" to
American security. Entry by US forces into each and every one of them has increased American
insecurity, generating ever more Muslim terrorist forces. None of these places posed state-led
threats to Americans and none posed non-state forces that could not have been addressed by
means other than the failed methods that the US government adopted, symbolized by the entirely
unnecessary and counter-productive
War on Terror .
In his speech, Tillerson presents new elaborations, new rationales, and new flowerings of
neocon thought, but the root of it all remains unchanged. It's the same old rot we've heard for
the past 17 years and longer. The War on Terror remains fixed firmly in his mind. This he makes
clear, saying "The fight against ISIS is not over." And he says "Similarly, we must persist in
Syria to thwart al-Qaida " The secondary excuse for the uninvited US presence inside Syria is
to get rid of the Assad government and create a new state. "Additionally, a total withdrawal of
American personnel at this time would restore Assad and continue his brutal treatment against
his own people. A murderer of his own people cannot generate the trust required for long-term
stability."
Baloney. Tillerson's language echoes the language used against Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi.
The US always resorts to holier-than-thou language like this when it wants to justify the
empire's presence in some place that has nothing to do with American security.
Tillerson knows enough not to name "nation-building" in Syria as US policy. Instead he uses
a euphemism: "STABILIZATION".
The world is not a pretty place everywhere, not even in parts of the Americas that I'll
refrain from naming; but some are close to the White House. This doesn't justify a costly US
presence that, in any event, is very likely not only to fail but also to produce a worse
situation.
It's not the role of the US government to dry out an alcoholic world, or to get it off
drugs, pretty it up, wash it clean, apply new makeup, get it a paying job, find it a mate, turn
it into a responsible citizen, and have it raise its children as good parents. Why not? Because
it cannot! It doesn't know enough to do it and it cannot know enough to do it, so that when it
tries the results are no better and often worse than doing nothing at all, not to mention the
costs.
People in power who use lofty language as in this speech present to us a scenario, which is
that they have surveyed the turf, discovered the issues, and formulated a plan. They make out
that they actually understand human problems and can do something about them using the powers
of their office. We should believe none of this. The processes that they think are predictable
and governable are neither. Non-ergodicity rules much of human life.
NON-ERGODIC: "Attribute of a behavior that is in certain crucial respects incomprehensible
through observation either for lack of repetition, e.g., by involving only transient states
which are unique, or for lack of stabilities, e.g., when transition probabilities (see
probabilities) are so variable that there are not enough observations available to ascertain
them. Evolution and social processes involving structural changes are inherently non-ergodic.
To understand non-ergodic behavior requires either reference to the underlying organization of
the system exhibiting it or the study of a large sample of systems of the same kind (see
ergodic). (Krippendorff)"
It is OK for an empire to be hated and feared, it doesn't work so good when Glory slowly fades and he empire instead
becomes hated and despised
Notable quotes:
"... There's only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn't figure out what Erdogan's reaction would be. He must have thought that, "Whatever Uncle Sam says, goes." Only it doesn't work like that anymore. ..."
"... Simply put, Washington is losing the war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition (Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty, self determination and non intervention. ..."
"... Tillerson's blunder will only make Washington's task all the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam's Kurdish proxies. ..."
"... In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn't even have the decency to discuss the matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! ..."
"... One day you're a terrorist, and the next day you're not depending on whether Washington can use you or not. ..."
"... Now the US has to choose between its own proxy army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical crossroads between Asia and Europe ..."
"... "In response to President Erdoğan's call on the United States to end the delivery of weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the future," the sources added." (Hurriyet) ..."
"... So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon's directive to "Never interfere with an enemy while he's in the process of destroying himself." ..."
"... Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct "Operation Olive Branch" in order to pave the way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight instead. ..."
"... Erdogan's demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It's another win-win situation for Putin. ..."
So why did Tillerson think Erdogan would respond differently?
There's only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn't figure
out what Erdogan's reaction would be. He must have thought that, "Whatever Uncle Sam says,
goes." Only it doesn't work like that anymore.
The US has lost its ability to shape events in
the Middle East, particularly in Syria where its jihadist proxies have been rolled back on
nearly every front. The US simply doesn't have sufficient forces on the ground to determine the
outcome, nor is it respected as an honest broker, a dependable ally or a reliable steward of
regional security. The US is just one of many armed-factions struggling to gain the upper hand
in an increasingly fractious and combustible battlespace. Simply put, Washington is losing the
war quite dramatically due in large part to the emergence of a new coalition
(Russia-Syria-Iran-Hezbollah) that has made great strides in Syria and that is committed to
preserve the Old World Order, a system that is built on the principles of national sovereignty,
self determination and non intervention.
Washington opposes this system and is doing everything
in its power dismantle it by redrawing borders, toppling elected leaders, and installing its
own stooges to execute its diktats. Tillerson's blunder will only make Washington's task all
the more difficult by drawing Turkey into the fray in an effort to quash Uncle Sam's Kurdish
proxies.
In an effort to add insult to injury, Tillerson didn't even have the decency to discuss the
matter with Erdogan– his NATO ally– before making the announcement! Can you imagine
how furious Erdogan must have been? Shouldn't the president of Turkey expect better treatment
from his so-called friends in Washington who use Turkish air fields to supply their ground
troops and to carry out their bombing raids in Syria? But instead of gratitude, he gets a big
kick in the teeth with the announcement that the US is hopping into bed with his mortal
enemies, the Kurds. Check out this excerpt from Wednesday's Turkish daily, The Hurriyet ,which
provides a bit of background on the story:
"It is beyond any doubt that the U.S. military and administration knew that the People's
Protection Units (YPG) had organic ties with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which
Washington officially recognizes as a terrorist group .The YPG is the armed wing of the
Democratic Union Party (PYD), which is the political wing of the PKK in Syria. They share the
same leadership the same budget, the same arsenal, the same chain of command from the Kandil
Mountains in Iraq, and the same pool of militants. So the PYD/YPG is actually not a
"PKK-affiliated" group, it is a sub-geographical unit of the same organization .
Knowing that the YPG and the PKK are effectively equal, and legally not wanting to appear
to be giving arms to a terrorist organization, the U.S. military already asked the YPG to
"change the brand" back in 2015. U.S.
Special Forces Commander General Raymond Thomas said during an Aspen Security Forum
presentation on July 22, 2017 that he had personally proposed the name change to the YPG.
"With about a day's notice [the YPG] declared that it was now the Syrian Democratic Forces
[SDF]," Thomas said to laughter from the audience. "I thought it was a stroke of brilliance
to put 'democracy' in there somewhere. It gave them a little bit of credibility."
(Hurriyet)
Ha, ha, ha. Isn't that funny? One day you're a terrorist, and the next day you're not
depending on whether Washington can use you or not. Is it any wonder why Erdogan is so pissed
off?
So now a messy situation gets even messier. Now the US has to choose between its own proxy
army (The Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces) and a NATO ally that occupies the critical
crossroads between Asia and Europe. Washington's plan to pivot to Asia by controlling vital
resources and capital flowing between the continents depends largely on its ability to keep
regional leaders within its orbit. That means Washington needs Erdogan in their camp which, for
the time being, he is not.
Apparently, there have been phone calls between Presidents Trump and Erdogan, but early
accounts saying that Trump scolded Erdogan have already been disproven. In fact, Trump and his
fellows have been bending-over-backwards to make amends for Tillerson's foolish slip-up.
According to the Hurriyet:
"The readout issued by the White House does not accurately reflect the content of
President [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan's phone call with President [Donald] Trump," "President
Trump did not share any 'concerns [about] escalating violence' with regard to the ongoing
military operation in Afrin." The Turkish sources also stressed that Trump did not use the
words "destructive and false rhetoric coming from Turkey."
Erdoğan reiterated that the People's Protection Units (YPG) must withdraw to the East
of the Euphrates River and pledged the protection of Manbij by the Turkish-backed Free Syrian
Army (FSA)
"In response to President Erdoğan's call on the United States to end the delivery of
weapons to the [Democratic Union Party] PYD-YPG, President Trump said that his country no
longer supplied the group with weapons and pledged not to resume the weapons delivery in the
future," the sources added." (Hurriyet)
If this report can be trusted, (Turkish media is no more reliable than US media) then it is
Erdogan who is issuing the demands not Trump. Erdogan insists that all YPG units be redeployed
east of the Euphrates and that all US weapons shipments to Washington's Kurdish proxies stop
immediately. We should know soon enough whether Washington is following Erdogan's orders or
not.
So far, the only clear winner in this latest conflagration has been Vladimir Putin, the
levelheaded pragmatist who hews to Napoleon's directive to "Never interfere with an enemy while
he's in the process of destroying himself."
Putin gave Erdogan the green light to conduct "Operation Olive Branch" in order to pave the
way for an eventual Syrian takeover of the Northwestern portion of the country up to the
Turkish border. Moscow removed its troops from the Afrin quarter (where the current fighting is
taking place) but not before it presented the Kurds with the option of conceding control of the
area to the central government in Damascus. The Kurds rejected that offer and elected to fight
instead. Here's an account of what happened:
Nearly a week ago, [a] meeting between Russian officials and Kurdish leaders took place.
Moscow suggested Syrian State becomes only entity in charge of the northern border. The Kurds
refused. It was immediately after that that the Turkish Generals were invited to Moscow.
Having the Syrian State in control of its Northern Border wasn't the only Russian demand. The
other was that the Kurds hand back the oil fields in Deir al Zor. The Kurds refused
suggesting that the US won't allow that anyway.
Putin has repeatedly expressed concern about US supplies of advanced weapons that had been
given to the Kurdish SDF. According to the military website South Front:
"Uncontrolled deliveries of modern weapons, including reportedly the deliveries of the
man-portable air defense systems, by the Pentagon to the pro-US forces in northern Syria,
have contributed to the rapid escalation of tensions in the region and resulted in the launch
of a special operation by the Turkish troops." (SouthFront)
Erdogan's demand that Trump stop the flow of weapons to the SDF will benefit Russia and its
allies on the ground even more than they will benefit Turkey. It's another win-win situation
for Putin.
The split between the NATO allies seems to work in Putin's favor as well, although, to his
credit, he has not tried to exploit the situation. Putin ascribes to the notion that relations
between nations are not that different than relations between people, they must be built on a
solid foundation of trust which gradually grows as each party proves they are steady, reliable
partners who can be counted on to honor their commitments and keep their word. Putin's honesty,
even-handedness and reliability have greatly enhanced Russia's power in the region and his
influence in settling global disputes. That is particularly evident in Syria where Moscow is at
the center of all decision-making.
As we noted earlier, Washington has made every effort to patch up relations with Turkey and
put the current foofaraw behind them. The White House has issued a number of servile statements
acknowledging Turkey's "legitimate security concerns" and their "commitment to work with Turkey
as a NATO ally." And there's no doubt that the administration's charm offensive will probably
succeed in bringing the narcissistic and mercurial Erdogan back into the fold. But for how
long?
At present, Erdogan is still entertains illusions of cobbling together a second Ottoman
empire overseen by the Grand Sultan Tayyip himself, but when he finally comes to his senses and
realizes the threat that Washington poses to Turkish independence and sovereignty, he may
reconsider and throw his lot with Putin.
In any event, Washington has clearly tipped its hand revealing its amended strategy for
Syria, a plan that abandons the pretext of a "war on terror" and focuses almost-exclusively on
military remedies to the "great power" confrontation outlined in Trump's new National Defense
Strategy. Washington is fully committed to building an opposition proxy-army in its east Syria
enclave that can fend off loyalist troops, launch destabilizing attacks on the regime, and
eventually, effect the political changes that help to achieve its imperial ambitions.
Tillerson's announcement may have prompted some unexpected apologies and back-tracking, but
the policy remains the same. Washington will persist in its effort to divide the country and
remove Assad until an opposing force prevents it from doing so. And, that day could be sooner
than many people imagine. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Mike Whitney
"... Here's another map that's a little different than the one linked by Peter AU1. The Kurdish Project - https://thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/ (remove the space) ..."
"... Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy. ..."
I think you're on target with your comment. Also, I don't believe Jared has asked the Kurds themselves whether they're on board
or not. Let me explain.
Remember that both Pence and Tillerson were outspoken Never Trumpers. Pence was promised that he'd be 100% in charge of
policy and all day to day decisions. When he asked Trump what he intended to be doing he replied: "I'll be busy making America
Great Again." Whatever deal and contract wound up being signed between them, I think the tomahawk missile attack on Syria violated
the details and revoked most of Pence's authority.
Several, including Bannon have stated that Jared is in charge of ME policy. So, what did Jared offer to Exxon and Tillerson
in exchange for the SOS position? I believe he / they are slated to become the King of Kurdistan. "King" is the only thing
that Tillerson hasn't had in his life; yet.
Notice the potential for deep water ports on the Mediterranean, Black, and Caspian Seas. Tillerson's role with Exxon provided
him with an unique understanding of exactly how much $$ that Erdogan was able to steal without consequence and leaves the pit
bulls' jowels dribbling with saliva, as if a rib eye steak's aroma was wafting thru the room, with jealous envy.
Bernie Sanders figured out that he could double down and REALLY monetize the scam that Ron Paul executed against the Republican
voters in 2012; which he executed to perfection.
I believe Exxon / Tillerson have figured out that they are going to REALLY monetize the oil theft that Erdogan executed with
Kurdistan and his name will be written in the history books as a King.
Trump wants out of Nato. The Pentagon wants ports, runways and to surround Russia. Whether Turkey remains in Nato or not is
inconsequential to Jared and Greater Israel.
"... Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy. She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd, deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted. ..."
"... Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force.. ..."
"... I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way"? ..."
Our ambassador to the U.N. doesn't understand anything about diplomacy:
Nikki Haley on reports South Korea is proposing talks with North Korea: "We will not take
any of the talk seriously if they don't do something to ban all nuclear weapons in North
Korea." https://t.co/RaGT9E3dRtpic.twitter.com/pVyCc9VxzD
Haley's remarks are consistent with the Trump administration's hopeless North Korea policy.
She is insisting that North Korea do something it has said it will never do, and she says that
it will have to do this before the U.S. begins to "take seriously" any negotiations North Korea
enters into. Setting preconditions for talks is bad enough, but here Haley is setting absurd,
deal-breaking preconditions that even she has to know will never be accepted.
There is no more obvious non-starter than demanding that the other side surrender before
negotiations even begin. By dismissing all talks that precede denuclearization, Haley is
restating the administration's complete refusal to compromise and its utter contempt for
diplomacy as a tool of statecraft. It is an exceptionally obtuse and unreasonable position to
take when there is an opportunity to open negotiations with Pyongyang, and I expect that our
regional allies will be as baffled as they are disturbed by it.
This is standard operating procedure as far as the U.S. goes.
1. 2008 – U.S. insists that Iran has to dismantle their entire nuclear infrastructure
as a precondition of 'negotiations'. HRC cackles that the additional sanctions she put in
place 'brought Iran back to the negotiating table'. Obama, to his credit, accepts Iran's
original claim to their right to enrich uranium to produce their own fuel but the myth that
sanctions brought 'them' to the negotiating table lives on.
2. The U.S. torpedoes Geneva peace plan in 2012 (Obama's bad moment) by making it a
requirement that Assad (and his cronies) have to resign and be barred from new elections in
Syria. End result, civil war continues for another 5yrs, Saudi backed rebels are still
demanding that Assad has to step down even after getting whipped on the battlefield.
So as bad as Nikki Haley is, sadly, she is not uncommon but rather she is the pinnacle of
what passes in the U.S. for diplomacy.
Certainly she is looking down the road, when she knows she will need the moneyed interests of
those groups who support using the American military to further their goals.. She has the
cover of being the thug without the responsibility of using force..
Like most everyone still involved with trump at this point, they are trying to maximize
whatever window they have to benefit themselves..
After citizens united they just might get away with it, but they have no feelings of
responsibility to our country, IMO..
I know I'm a broken record on this, but is there really no one left in the realm of American
foreign policy who understands the saying, "Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have
your way"?
Maybe South Korea will take its rightful place and carry out its own policy toward North
Korea. Then the Trump administration will get angry and threaten to pull out all of our
troops. South Korea will be courageous and continue its own policy. Then our troops will
leave. The best result for South Korea and North Korea. And best for us, since we will no
longer be wasting time and money there, as well as placing our troops in danger for no valid
purpose.
This reincarnation of Madeleine "Not so bright" Albright is capable mostly of imperial bulling. But times changed...
Notable quotes:
"... While you are here For the last 15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful, smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology, principles over party. Please consider a tax-deductible, year-end contribution so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018! ..."
"... for reasons unknown (other than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... What makes Americ a different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right -- indeed, the duty -- of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally, but in their own nations, too. ..."
"... U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect, what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress ..."
"... . On Fox News (where else?) she declared: "We have the right to do whatever we want in terms of where we put our embassies." As for foreign criticism: "We don't need other countries telling us what's right and wrong." ..."
"... What could be more obvious? Other governments have no right to make decisions about their own countries, and need to be told what's right and wrong by Washington on any and every subject, day or night, in sunshine, rain, or snow. But another element of American exceptionalism is the fact that the U.S. is exempt from the rules it applies to other nations. Washington gets to lecture, but no one gets to tell Americans what they should do. ..."
"... The sad irony is that the U.S. would have greater credibility if it better practiced what it preached, and didn't attempt social engineering abroad that's routinely failed at home. Especially nice would be a bit more humility and self-awareness by Washington's representatives. But Nikki Haley seems determined to continue as a disciple of the Madeleine Albright school of all-knowing, all-seeing, all-saying diplomacy. As such, she's unlikely to fool anyone other than herself. ..."
Carrying on the tradition of hubris and hypocrisy of every other modern U.N. ambassador.While you are here For the last
15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful,
smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology,
principles over party. Please consider
a tax-deductible, year-end contribution so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018!
As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley didn't have much need to worry about foreign policy. Yet for reasons unknown (other
than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed
to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy.
What makes Americ a different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right --
indeed, the duty -- of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally,
but in their own nations, too.
U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect,
what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress .
There is precedent for Washington as all-seeing and all-knowing. A sparrow cannot "fall to the ground apart from the will of"
God, Jesus explained. So, too, it appears, is such an event impossible in America's view apart from U.S. approval.
Washington officials rarely are so blunt, but their rhetoric is routinely suffused with arrogance. The concept of American exceptionalism
is one example. The country's founding was unique and the U.S. has played an extraordinary role in international affairs, but that
does not sanctify policies that have often been brutal, selfish, incompetent, perverse, and immoral. Sometimes America's actions
share all of those characteristics simultaneously -- such as aiding the royal Saudi dictatorship as it slaughters civilians in Yemen
in an attempt to restore a puppet regime there.
In recent history, Madeleine Albright, both as UN ambassador and secretary of state under Bill Clinton, perhaps came closest to
personifying the clueless American diplomat. As Washington made a hash of the Balkans and Middle East, she explained that "we stand
tall. We see further than other countries in the future." The U.S., of course, was "the indispensable nation." Which presumably is
why she felt entitled to announce that "we think the price is worth it" when asked about the reported deaths of a half million Iraqi
children as a result of sanctions against Baghdad.
And, of course, there was her extraordinary exchange with Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when she asked,
"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Presumably she had no family members
at risk as she planned to wage global crusades with other people's lives.
Albright has large shoes to fill but Haley appears to be well on her way. In a position that theoretically emphasizes diplomacy,
the former South Carolina governor has been cheerleading for war with North Korea. Never mind that a nuke or two landing on Seoul
or Tokyo would wipe out millions of people. No doubt she will cheerfully put a positive spin on disaster if the administration decides
it's time for Armageddon in Northeast Asia.
Haley has also brilliantly played the sycophantic spokeswoman for the Saudi royals. Riyadh's intervention in the unending Yemeni
civil war has killed thousands of civilians, imposed a starvation blockade, and led famine and cholera to sweep through what was
already one of the poorest nations on earth. All of this has been done with U.S. support: supplying munitions, refueling aircraft,
and aiding with targeting.
But when the Yemenis returned fire with a missile, Haley summoned her best sanctimonious demeanor and denounced Iran for allegedly
making this outrageous, shocking attack possible. Apparently the Saudi sense of entitlement goes so far as to believe that Saudi
Arabia's victims aren't even supposed to shoot back.
Yet Haley's finest hubristic moment may have come after the president's decision to move America's embassy to Jerusalem. Israel
treats that city as its capital, of course. But Jerusalem is the holiest land for Jews and Christians, third holiest for Muslims,
and the most emotional point of dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Indeed, since conquering East Jerusalem in the 1967 war,
the Israeli government has been working assiduously to squeeze Palestinians out of the city.
Congress's approval in 1995 of legislation mandating that the State Department move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was politics
at its most cynical. Members in the Republican-controlled Congress postured as great friends of Israel while adding a waiver that
they expected presidents to always employ. Everyone did so until Donald Trump. At least his decision ostentatiously puts the lie
to the claim that Washington can play honest broker in promoting a Middle East peace. No sentient Palestinian could have believed
so, but the president finally made it official.
That Haley kept a straight face while explaining how Washington could upset the status quo, outrage Palestinians, undercut Arab
allies, and anger Muslims, yet still bring peace, harmony, and calm to the Middle East was to be expected. "We can see the peace
process really come together," she declared without a hint of irony.
But her finest moment -- almost Churchillian in significance -- was when she responded to criticism of the president's decision,
including by the other 14 members of the UN Security Council. On Fox News (where else?) she declared: "We have the right
to do whatever we want in terms of where we put our embassies." As for foreign criticism: "We don't need other countries telling
us what's right and wrong."
Of course.
What could be more obvious? Other governments have no right to make decisions about their own countries, and need to be told
what's right and wrong by Washington on any and every subject, day or night, in sunshine, rain, or snow. But another element of American
exceptionalism is the fact that the U.S. is exempt from the rules it applies to other nations. Washington gets to lecture, but no
one gets to tell Americans what they should do.
The sad irony is that the U.S. would have greater credibility if it better practiced what it preached, and didn't attempt
social engineering abroad that's routinely failed at home. Especially nice would be a bit more humility and self-awareness by Washington's
representatives. But Nikki Haley seems determined to continue as a disciple of the Madeleine Albright school of all-knowing, all-seeing,
all-saying diplomacy. As such, she's unlikely to fool anyone other than herself.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
All of us at TAC wish you a Merry Christmas holiday and the best wishes for 2018. Our 501(c)(3) depends on your generosity
to make the biggest impact possible. Please consider your tax deductible donation to our magazine,
here .* Thank you!
*Contribute $250 or more before December 31 and receive an autographed copy of Robert Merry's brand new book, President
McKinley: Architect of a New Century!
Colonel, FYI, our well informed, and, on top of it all, UN ambassador Nikki the bookkeeper,
is hoping for a newly independent island nation of "Binomo" rising from bottom of South China
Sea, and delivered by Santa to her huge Christmas tree in Guatemala. https://www.rt.com/news/414086-prank-nikki-haley-russia-place/
The vote came after a redoubling of threats by Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, who
said that Washington would remember which countries "disrespected" America by voting against
it.
Despite the warning, 128 members voted on Thursday in favour of the resolution supporting
the longstanding international consensus that the status of Jerusalem – which is claimed
as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians – can only be
settled as an agreed final issue in a peace deal. Countries which voted for the resolution
included major recipients of US aid such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq.
But only nine states – including the United States and Israel –voted against the
resolution. The other countries which supported Washington were Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau,
Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras.
'The United States will remember this day, in which it was singled out for attack in the
General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation'
To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both
the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN's disproportionate
focus on Israel. It's a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in
turn is harmful for the entire world.
I've often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member
of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because
it's important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation;
but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is
supposed to be about.
Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country
– the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The
United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.
We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our
participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and
educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the
world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It
is our American way.
But we'll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a
legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled
out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is
asked to pay for the "privilege" of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious
privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to
its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial
capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we
have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that
come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
The arguments about the President's decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have
already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law
dating back to 1995, and it's position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever
since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem's
boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that.
The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President's decision reflects the
will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy.
There is no need to describe it further.
Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which
it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right
as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the
world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many
countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence
for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do,
and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on
that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at
countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
Dump Trump, Nikki for President. If we are going to have a bullshi**er for President we might
as well have the best. THe crap she spouted makes Trump sound like a novice.
"Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which
it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our
right as a sovereign nation."
I have lost count of how many times the US has destroyed countries, for exercising THEIR
rights as a sovereign nation. Often deceitfully and cynically using the UN as it's
instrument.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Fortunately it seems the rest of the world is coming to realize
that the US is unhinged and that trying to deal rationally with a lunatic is pointless. Watch
China and Russia make great gains globally as former US allies turn away.
I suppose that any Congressional action could be said to be a reflection of "the will" of the
American people since they are elected representatives, but, in reality, how many Americans
were even aware of the 1995 Jerusalem embassy law? How can it be said that such law has been
repeatedly "endorsed" by the American people, presumably by continuing to send people to
Congress or by the re-signing of 6-month waivers to delay sending the embassy to Jerusalem,
which has happened twice a year for over twenty years with absolutely zero discussion or
publicity?
Haley claims to speak for the American people but she is truly speaking for the grossly
powerful Israel lobby which has literally purchased its significant place at the table.
Everyone knows this, so her self-righteous remarks produce scorn and disgust.
"Israel... stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity... "
Haley must be talking about a different Israel from the one in the middle east.
As for the United Nations, it's about time the organisation stands up against the tyrants and
starts doing what it was created for, support global cooperation and international laws.
Apply it's rules equally: not just sanction developing countries for saying no to
exploitation by the rich ot for building their own national defense because rich and powerful
countries use aggression to get what they want.
If the United Nations were a just organisation Palestine would have become a sovereign nation
decades ago, global terrorism would not exist and no nation would develop nuclear
weapons.
But, as always, money is the driver and the US/Israel blackmailing may just succeed.
Hey Nikki - most of the world, and many of us here in the U.S. are sick and tired of the
nation's work on behalf of some mythical "values" and those ever-present "interests." We know
who you serve, and it sure as hell ain't the people of any nation. Haley is prepping for a
run at the Senate, and is setting herself up quite nicely for those big checks from Adelson.
When we pay our dues to the UN we expect to be obeyed. "We have an obligation to demand more
for our investment" - thus shrieked the incomparable Nikki Haley. If she had read Lewis
Carrol (which I doubt) she might have shortened her speech by saying "Off with their heads".
If the US thinks it can buy out the world, it is getting truly delusional. BTW, are these
128 countries now going to be sanctioned? And what after that if the world still disobeys the
mighty US?
Watch out for a blast of twitters from the USA's Twitterer-in-Chief. He will drown these 128
countries in venom and fry their Twitter accounts. The lady representing the US at the UN has
carefully prepared a list of these countries - watch out all you 128 countries. Trump and the
lady will go hopping mad - maybe we may get to see that routine - and then just you wait, you
128 countries, for the barrage of twitters that will be let loose upon you. Some day, the US
rep at the UN may even assault the reps of other countries and spit and cuss at them. Now
that would be a show worth watching!
Well that's it but don't blame Trump.
UN member states have come to the conclusion that it's now safe to rebut the United States
.
Trump in his clumsiness has only highlighted what the UN has been and that it is a corrupt
sovereign nation bribing nation states with American aid for their votes.
Reagan did it Clinton did it Bush did it Bush Senior did it and now Trump has done it.
This is Americas international policy wake up call.
Member States do not trust America any more and they could not have expressed their views any
stronger.
The British must take some blame too for riding the Tigers back for the past seventy
years.
Only psychophantics will follow these nations now.
That goes for North Korea too.
Will the UN decide now not to attack North Korea and level it to the ground with horrific
casualties for the second time.
The world has tired of Americas impudence of terror.
They should pull out of their military bases now around the world .
The countries that host them have had enough of their paranoid exceptionalism.
It's time to change direction and to defy US fiat money bribes.
Bizarre, surreal, unbelievable, jaw-dropping, astounding, mind-boggling, incomprehensible?
... Watching Ms. Haley - on behalf of Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and their bosses - continue
digging in an already deep hole of isolation leads one to ponder if the human language even
provides words sufficient for accurately describing what is occurring.
Jack
Marshall Islands - pop 53,000. In free association with USA Inc.
Nuclear test site. Most bombed country on the planet. Nuked 67 times.
Uses USD for currency.
Bikini Atoll fame. First hydrogen bomb test.
Survives on payments from uncle Sam for genocide of an island population.
Destitute and radiated with Amerikkkan values, happy Hanukka Marshall Islands
After reading the comments on this page I just can't figure out why the American voter is
always voting for the one corporate party dictatorship. Sorry to say I don't see much
difference in republicans and democrats, when it comes to wars, and Israel.
There is a reason much of the world hates Israel.......and now also they hate the US.
Dennis Morrisseau
USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
LIBERTY UNION founder
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FireCongress.org
Second Vermont Republic, VFM
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
One can only be dumbstruck by the breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of this woman:
"What we witnessed here in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten,"
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said after the vote, adding that it was the
first veto cast by the United States in more than six years.
"The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in
defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment
for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council," Haley
said.
Oh, dear; America is isolated! How did this happen?
The Trump administration must have had a feeling it would go badly, and Haley must have
prepared a response to go with using the American veto; she's just not that good at thinking
on her feet. Politics One-Oh-One: never ask a question to which you do not already know the
answer.
Keep it up, America. You are pissing off Europe to the point it is asking itself, why are
we friends with this jerk? We're not there yet – the USA still has lots of money, and
too many European leaders perceive that the bloc could not survive without lovely American
money. But the progress is incrementally in that direction.
I'm really happy about this. The reason being that the mask is completely off. Nikki Haley is
the most honest UN rep America has had in a long time. Look at the exact words. The clear
meaning is that the UN (and associated international law) is, in the American view, most
emphatically not an association of equal nations bound by common rules. It's a protection
racket where little countries can be bullied by big ones, but big ones (most especially the
US) are accountable to no one. And it's an insult to even suggest that the UN might have
standing to criticize the US the same way it criticizes smaller countries. Everyone knew all
this before, but it's refreshing to see it expressed so honestly.
I absolutely agree, and the more America shits itself right in front of everyone, the better
I like it. Because it is burning all its soft-power bridges; carrots are out and the stick is
in. But quite a few countries don't care for that sort of threatening, and some among those
might even say "Or what? Like, what will you do? Impose sanctions against us? Because you are
running out of trading partners already, fuck-stick, so just keep it up and you won't have
any".
Don't be too quick. Here the OP is happy that US exceptionalism is being forced down the
world's throat. It is clear that the UN and most other "international organizations" such as
WADA, IOP, etc, are US puppets. For some reason, such organizations were trying to act
impartial during the previous cold war. During the current cold war they have no impartiality
whatsoever. So some pancake house waitress can spew all sorts of "refreshing" BS and the
"united nothings" are supposed to eat it with a smile.
I recall lots of wailing in the NATzO media before 1990 how the UN was "ineffective". They
must be all wet with glee that the current UN is nothing more than Washington's tool.
Haley has completed the transformation of diplomacy at the the UN into a farce. Its her party
and she can cry if she wants to.
The 64 nations that voted 'no,' abstained, or were not present during the UN General
Assembly's diplomatic spanking of Washington's Jerusalem move will get a "thank you"
reception from US envoy Nikki Haley.
Perhaps those unwanted miserably losers (e.g. China, Russia, most of Europe, etc.) can
have their version of the deploraball featuring sumptuous Middle East cuisine (no joke, that
would be good eatin').
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis seems skeptical about neocon hysteria, declaring that the North Korean missile program does not pose a "capable threat" to the United States. With that in mind, we can only hope that President Trump will encourage Tillerson to do another about-face and return to the idea of talks without pre-condition. Strategic ambiguity is one thing, sending constantly mixed signals when nuclear war looms is something else. (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative) ..."
President Trump has often said that his foreign policy objective was to
keep his enemies guessing. If that's the goal, you could say that he's doing a good job. The problem is who
does he think his enemies are, because the American people are often left guessing as well.
US policy toward North Korea last week is a good example of how the Trump
Administration is wittingly or unwittingly sowing confusion among friend and foe alike. In what looked like
a breakthrough, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced last Tuesday that the US would be willing to sit
down and talk with North Korea "without preconditions." Previously the US had demanded that North Korea
agree to end its nuclear weapons and missile programs before Washington was willing to sit down to formal
talks.
The State Department shift toward actual diplomacy with North Korea was
quickly quashed, however, when the White House announced that its position on North Korea had not changed.
It seemed that the State Department and White House were each pursuing different foreign policies on the
Korea issue.
The White House even appeared to belittle Tillerson's attempt at
diplomacy, releasing a statement on Wednesday that talks with North Korea would be "pointless." No wonder
speculation persists that Tillerson is on his way out as Secretary of State.
Then on Friday Secretary Tillerson seemed to do a u-turn on his own
policy, announcing at a UN Security Council meeting that a "sustained cessation of North Korea's threatening
behavior" must precede any negotiations with the US. "North Korea must earn its way back to the table," he
said. So, after just three days the offer of unconditional talks with North Korea had been put on and then
removed from the table.
There is more than a little hypocrisy in US demands that North Korea cease
its "threatening behavior." Just this month the US and South Korea launched yet another joint military
exercise targeting North Korea. Some 12,000 military personnel and 230 aircraft – including stealth fighters
– participated in the massive war games. Does anyone think this is not meant to be threatening to North
Korea?
It is a shame that the hawks in the Administration continue to dominate.
It seems pretty reasonable to open talks with North Korea after a period of "good faith" gestures between
Washington and Pyongyang. Why not agree on no US/South Korean joint military exercises for six months in
exchange for no North Korean missile launches for the same period and then agree to a meeting on neutral
ground? How could it possibly hurt, particularly considering the alternative?
The hawks continue to talk up a US strike against North Korea. Senator
Lindsey Graham seemed pleased when he announced that there was a 70 percent chance that the US would attack
North Korea if it detonated another nuclear weapon. Does he realize how many people will die? Does he care?
Defense Secretary James Mattis seems skeptical about neocon hysteria,
declaring that the North Korean missile program does not pose a "capable threat" to the United States. With
that in mind, we can only hope that President Trump will encourage Tillerson to do another about-face and
return to the idea of talks without pre-condition. Strategic ambiguity is one thing, sending constantly
mixed signals when nuclear war looms is something else.
(Republished from
The Ron Paul Institute
by permission of author or representative)
Best solution would be to have each race have their own league. Due to biological race-ism that favors
blacks in sports, non-blacks can hardly play in pro sports.
So, let there be various racial leagues.
Since biological race-ism discriminates against whites in NBA and NFL, let there be the Blanco League.
T. Rex is probably closer to the mark. Clearly the Last Trump is continuing his Wizard of Oz impersonation
and being humored by his minders while others try to go about the business of actually performing miracles.
Eventually Congress critters will wake up back home in their jerrymandered constituencies and realize it has
all been a bad dream.
"Senator Lindsey Graham seemed pleased when he announced that there was a 70 percent chance that the
US would attack North Korea if it detonated another nuclear weapon. Does he realize how many people will
die? Does he care?"
1) Yes.
2) No.
It's a sick, sad world where a former JAG Corps officer has so much influence over foreign and national
defence and security policies.
Trump should re-activate him and either put him in Syria to brief the rules of engagement to the special
ops forces (who will no doubt frag him) in real-time, or at one of the bases near the Korean DMZ, where
he'll get real-world experience in the first wave of the invasion he is cheering on.
In a competent administration I'd assume good cop / bad cop. In the Trump era no assumptions are possible.
Everything is just random noise, like leaves and trash blowing down the street, or cats yowling on a fence.
With that in mind, we can only hope that President Trump will encourage Tillerson to do another
about-face and return to the idea of talks without pre-condition.
You got that right Dr. Paul. We can only hope. We want peace. We vote for peace. But we get war.
Why not agree on no US/South Korean joint military exercises for six months in exchange for no North
Korean missile launches for the same period and then agree to a meeting on neutral ground? How could it
possibly hurt, particularly considering the alternative?
Well the simple reason is that the US continues to dream of regime change in North Korea there is no
other 'plan'. There is no desire for simple coexistence with North Korea. That is quite plain and indisputable, based on the US actions. The US refusal to even consider a peace treaty for 60 years now makes that sinister motive plain as day. So it is useless to start from the point that the US is somehow interested in 'defusing' the North Korean
crisis or even cares about the nuclear weapons or missiles
Missiles and nukes are not the problem even without those the US has never abandoned its core goal of 70
years to dominate the entire Korean peninsula. As soon as we recognize what the dynamics here really are then we can go forward. It is interesting to see here that Tillerson is yet again showing himself to be hugely capable of
realism. This man is a gift to the American people but he is undermined by Dump himself who has chosen to adopt
the entire neocon agenda. If we assume that the policy of the US is shaped more by unseen actors rather than the elected and
visible personalities on center stage then my hope is that there are some rational players among those
'unseen' shot callers who may be supporting the Tillerson realpolitik approach because getting real and snapping out of disneyland fantasies is the only thing that is going to stave
off impending disaster for the US
We can only hope that such a faction of realists exists within the 'unseen' power structure. What we can be plenty sure of is that there is clearly another powerful faction at work call them the
neocons the war party or what you will and they seem to have the upper hand over the pathetically weak Dump
Hours after Haley tweeted "We appreciate these
countries for not falling to the irresponsible ways of the UN," Voice of America's UN
correspondent Margaret Besheer posted an
electronic version of the invitation to twitter, which reads "Save the Date: The Honorable
Nikki R. Haley, Permanent Representative United States Mission to the United Nations invites
you to a reception to thank you for your friendship to the United States, Wednesday, January 3,
2018 6:00-8:00p.m. Formal Invitation to Follow."
US Ambassador Nikki Haley invites the 64 countries who voted 'no', abstained or didn't show up
for UNGA Jerusalem resolution to "friendship" party.
Naturally our first thought is that it sounds like it's going to be a pretty sad and deeply
awkward party. After all only 9 actually voted with the United States, and 35 were absentions,
leaving all the rest as no-shows. So even the majority of the 64 "friends" on the invitation
list were a bit too embarrassed to fully step up for their "friend" the first time around - why
would they then attend what sounds like a literal pity party for the losing side?
Perhaps the absentions will quietly show up trying to fit in at the "cool party" for the
winning team, wherever that may be. Newsweek has likened the invitation for making into the
'nice' column of the White House's "naughty or nice" list
.
And concerning what could very well comprise the "VIP part" of the invitation list - only
Israel, Honduras, Togo, U.S., Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Guatemala voted
against the Jerusalem resolution to condemn the US move to recognize the city as the capital of
Israel and relocate the American embassy there. Two-thirds of UN member states including
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and
Greece voted in favor of the resolution.
Notably, Canada abstained, which is sure going to make the "friendship to the United States"
party extra stiff and awkward the moment the Canadian delegation walks through the door.
And who knows, perhaps a few of those countries that did vote 'no' alongside the US did so
because prior to the vote both President Trump and Nikki Haley threatened to cut aid to
countries failing to support the controversial US decision (well actually many are sparsely
populated micronations who have long essentially been dependencies of the US government).
Haley's
parting speech after the vote took on a threatening tone as well, as despite being isolated
by virtually the entire international community, she warned the international body that the
U.S. would remember the vote as a betrayal by the U.N., and that the vote would do nothing to
affect the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move
its embassy there.
Haley reminded UN members of the US' generous contributions to the organization and said
that the United States expects its will to be respected in return. "When we make a generous
contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized
and respected," Haley said, adding that the vote will be "remembered" by the US and "make a
difference on how the Americans look at the UN."
And with all that parting drama, regarding Nikki's upcoming "friendship" party, it would be
great to be a fly on the wall for the event... or, perhaps it'll be too awkward even for the
flies.
this is yet another divide and conquer wedge issue. If you are against it they will label
you "unpatriotic anti-trump muslim-loving commie bolshevik." The cognitive dissonance is so
dense it's creating a vortex.
What a pathetic joke we've become on the international circuit. I loved the idea of #MAGA
and America first. But this? We're the laughing stock of international diplomacy.
U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries. According to the federal government, for
fiscal year 2012, "The United States remained the world's largest bilateral donor, obligating
approximately $48.4 billion -- $31.2 billion in economic assistance and $17.2 billion in
military assistance." Oct 15, 2014
Merry Christmas we have decided to split $50 billion bewtween you 64.
You forgot it was the United State sand NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of
the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist
policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness
of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural
resources?
You forgot it was the United State and NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of
the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist
policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness
of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural
resources?
Astonishing reduction in death from famine versus previous centuries?
Education programs worldwide.
Population control programs.
I have worked many times with the UN in my career so I know what a sham it can be. But it
is an international institution that has prevented a major world or regional war since its
inception. You might be too young to know the seventies and eighties, but the UN served a
very useful purpose in giving a forum to argue between the world powers.
Trumpeteers call the UN a sham because the UN is not a US department. That is the entire
point. If you want war and to continue building the empire, just quit the UN. Cast off the
sheep's clothing and admit that the US is a violent, expansionist nation of thugs and
xenophobes.
I think what bothers Trumpeteers and right wing Americans the most about the UN is that it
costs money but the benefits are hard to measure. And Americans have no interest any more in
spending money to help people. Charity starts at home! Jesus was a white man. Death to
unbelievers. Fuck the poor and downtrodden. All of this is American zeitgeist. For years
Americans thought these things but did not dare to shout them out loud. Now Trump. a man with
no mental control over his words, shouts these things and Americans feel empowered. So fuck
the UN and all the money-grubbing poor people. Let them starve. And if they dare turn to
China or Russia we will bomb the shit out of them...in the name of democracy.
you can spout "MAGA" and "The UN sucks", but until you actually provide facts and
acknowledge facts, you look like any of the other mullet-headed, ignorant fuckheads here on
ZH.
There should be a major shakeup in the Trump team coming up imminently.
Those that put the bug in the President's ear concerning this fiasco creating move of our
embassy to Jewrusalem or on the other hand those that failed to stop him if he was set on
doing it.
We look like fools on the international stage
An interesting aside is the reaction of our main stream media to this whole affair.
The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad
coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee
world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.
Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily
basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay
or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.
The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad
coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee
world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.
Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily
basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay
or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.
The seven countries that sided Thursday with the United States and Israel on a U.N.
General Assembly resolution declaring "null and void" of Trump's Jerusalem Israel capital
1. Guatemala
2. Honduras
3. Marshall Islands
4. Micronesia
5. Nauru
6. Palau
7. Togo
35 creepy abstenshines.
Add U$A and I$$rahell to the seven comes 9 countries in fevour of.
Hellish repeatedly claimed that the move<<<for them to move the capital to
Jerusalem>>> was because of the will of Americans!
Question:
is Americans=Zionist/deep-state/
or
name exactly just one citizenry who happen beg Niki/Orange to trouble themselves.
Motherfuckers, they even said irrespective of the
UN votes resounding rejection, they gonna just ignore and move the USA embassy to
Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
And not surprisingly the bibi whore played guilty trip and claimed the rejection was
disrespecting to the USA.
Lying , pricks super Psychopath.Bibi also confirmed he doesn't care the vote,implying they
gonna punish UN by pulling out U$A $$$$ supply?
How the world gonna see these outragious move? Silently ?
For those who dont understand, this is psychological warfare they will now try to run for
a while. Most of this will be actually happening in private talks between 2, kind of "you can
be part of us and benefit, rather than be on your own where we cannot guarantee your
country's future" - type of talk. When you see sometimes in the future significant number of
UN's reversal on this stance, you will know what I was talking about. Probably terms like
"surprise" will be used in the news headlines.
He wouldn't dare. Most US foreign aid consists of gift cards for shopping at Uncle Sam's
Arms Emporium . The rest, like food and medical aid, are just cover ops for the CIA station
chiefs. You think he's going to go against the MIC/CIA?
"... Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted. ..."
"... Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being stupid. ..."
Nikki Haley, in her distinct fashion, articulated an "America First" pov at the UNSC
yesterday as she claimed the repudiation of decades of international understandings on the
status of Jerusalem was an expression of American "sovereignty", and criticism of same
amounted to an "insult" that "would not be forgotten." Not a lot of nuance, or diplomacy, on
display and the tantrum was aimed at friends and rivals alike.
The National Security vision seems to place a lot of faith in a version of laissez-faire
libertarian economics which, reading between the lines, will serve as a motivating principle
in extending great power rivalry based on defining the "rules based international system" as
precisely such economic system. That's probably not too different from the "exceptional"
viewpoint of the previous administrations, but expressed, much like Haley, in far blunter
fashion.
Very well said. I would only add that the globalist/financial sector did even better!
@ 15, 20
I am surprised that Russia does not openly support US regime change projects. (sarc)
Afganistan cost 100's of billions and converted the Taliban from allies to enemies.
Iraq cost 100's of billions and converted them from pro Sunni/Gulf to pro-Iranian
Turkey has cost uncounted billions and converted them from pro NATO to pro Russia
Syria cost up to 100 billion and converted the country from pro-west to pro Russia
Yemen cost billions and converted a pro-western ruler (now dead) to anti-western
This is not to mention Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and a host
of other countries in Africa and South America - who all look at Libya and realize the plans
that await them
Really, what other country gets so much bang for their buck? Perhaps this is history's
version of shock and awe for those who arrogate to themselves the power to 'make' it.
Don Bacon@15, Don, projected costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are not billions but
trillions.
Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds that the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan will measure in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done.
But that's not the most terrifying element of her survey of the fiscal impact of the "war on
terror" and related undertakings. What should really strike fear into your heart is her
finding that "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/28/cost_of_iraq_linda_bilmes_says_iraq_and_afghanistan_wars_could_cost_6_trillion.html
So much for Trumps 'fix our infrastructure' first promises. instead of MAGA we get MIGA make
Israel great again.
The greatest danger of the US's decline in power relative to the rest of the world is an
overreaction by the US to try to halt such decline. This has been true for a while; Trump's
belligerence just brings it into sharper focus. Obama was actually pretty much the same but
he hid it behind smoother language.
NSS: "We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains
preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win."
Currently the military is in poor shape. Half the fighter planes can't fly, only one of
eleven aircraft carriers is deployed, and the Pentagon has struggled to send one brigade to
Europe. Morale is low, the Air Force has a deficit of about 2,000 pilots, Navy personnel are
poorly trained in seamanship so collisions occur, and the Army is struggling to recruit
because young people in the recruit pool have drug and weight problems (and better things to
do).
The current "rebuilding" is characterized by spending tons of money on complex systems
that don't work well, like the F-35 strike fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the
stealth destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
Budget limitations including sequestration mean that the defense budget funds for
rebuilding are not available, and as the out-of-power Democrat Party insists that domestic
needs be considered equally with "defense." (That's the good news.)
Of course the military budget has little to do with defense and mostly has served for
elective wars which the US has consistently lost, and then paid to correct such as the $60
billion used for Iraq reconstruction in a country the US converted from an Iran enemy to an
Iran ally (Iran says thank you Uncle Sam).
Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need
for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear
that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American
influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes
America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will
continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted.
Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire
domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being
stupid.
"... Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter: @rezamarashi ..."
"... At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya, all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians. ..."
"... What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy and double standards! ..."
"... You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how. ..."
"... Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy. ..."
Nikki Haley is not good at foreign policy. With few discernible achievements to speak of after one year as America's envoy to
the UN, her most noteworthy moments have been two incoherent diatribes on Iran. The
first -- an airing of grievances passed off as justification for killing the Iran nuclear deal -- came and went with little fanfare.
Yesterday, she doubled down with a speech trying to make the case
that Iran is, among other things, supplying Houthis in Yemen with ballistic missiles and "fanning the flames of conflict in the region."
There are a variety of problems with Haley's assertions. Three in particular stand out.
First, Haley cited a UN report in her claim regarding Iranian missile transfers to the Houthis. Of course, the UN has reached
no such conclusion. Instead, a panel of experts
concluded that fired missile fragments show components from an Iranian company, but they have "no evidence as to the identity
of the broker or supplier." Asked about Haley's claim that Iran is the culprit, Sweden's ambassador to the UN
said, "The info I have is less clear." Analysts from the U.S. Department of Defense speaking to reporters at Haley's speech openly
acknowledged that they do not know the missiles'
origin. Perhaps most surreal is the very same UN report cited by Haley also
says the missile included a component that was manufactured by an American company. Did she disingenuously omit that inconvenient
bit from her remarks, or fail to read the entire UN report? The world may never know.
If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop arming
the various factions in Yemen. Tehran is no exception. But neither is Washington. It was therefore appalling to see that Haley's
speech reference Yemen and not include a single word about America's ongoing military, intelligence, and logistical support for the
Saudi-led humanitarian catastrophe taking place. If she wanted to focus on facts regarding Iran and Yemen, she should have explained
to reporters that, in addition to bolstering Iran's influence in country where it was previously negligible, the Saudi-led debacle
has also empowered al-Qaeda -- the same al-Qaeda that attacked the United States on 9/11 with 15 Saudi nationals, and continues to
plot attacks on America today.
There is also a stunning lack of foreign policy sophistication in Haley's prevailing assumption regarding Iran and missiles. Not
only do we recklessly arm despots in the world's most volatile region with missile of their own, we also provide the Iranian government
with a pretext to further develop its missile program -- and cite American and European military sales to an increasingly aggressive
Saudi Arabia and UAE as justification for doing so. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a slogan, not a strategy. And if it remains the
status quo, so too will the growth of Iran's missile program.
The most inexplicable part of Haley's charade is her insistence on talking about Iran rather than talking to Iran. The only thing
stopping her from sitting down one on one with her Iranian counterpart at the UN to respectfully discuss these matters is her own
shortsighted ideological rigidity. Frankly, the track record is clear. Talking about Iran produced more missiles under the Bush administration.
Talking to Iran eventually produced compromises on missiles under the Obama administration. Haley should spend less time using the
UN ambassadorship to boost her domestic political ambitions, and more time actually conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United
States.
If Haley is truly concerned about Iran's missile program and regional activities, she can take three immediate steps to demonstrate
her seriousness: First, immediately halt all American military, intelligence, and logistical support for the Saudi-led humanitarian
catastrophe in Yemen. If the war ends, concerns about Iran in Yemen recede. Second, freeze all missile sales to Middle Eastern countries.
If Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't armed to the teeth with missiles they don't know how to use, Iran's threat perception and missile
development reduces accordingly. Third, immediately offer bilateral and multilateral dialogue with the Iranian government on all
issues of contention -- with no preconditions. The JCPOA is proof that sustained diplomacy with Iran can produce favorable outcomes
for American interests.
Haley's dearth of foreign policy experience is no excuse for her shambolic performance yesterday. Rather than displaying the dignity
and poise of America's face to the United Nations, she had her Colin Powell 2003 moment, demonstrating that too many of our leaders
have still not learned the lessons of the Iraq war disaster. At best, this is willful ignorance on Haley's part. At worst (and more
likely), she cherry-picked intelligence
in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the 2002-2003 push for invading Iraq. It's not too late for Haley to salvage her tenure at the
UN, but it will require listening more to the professional staff of career government officials she inherited rather than the motley
crew of Republican operatives she brought with her to New York.
Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office
of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post,
and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter:
@rezamarashi
At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya,
all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British
pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come
forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians.
But why this time? Because this time the butcher of the world has found his buddy on the receiving end!
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop
arming the various factions in Yemen".
Mr Marashi, you speak from the safety of your office/country: Where the American armed and trained Saudi and Emirati forces
and pilots viciously attack defenseless civilians in Yemen that has so far left more than 10,000 killed and 8 million near starvation,
it is our moral obligation to support the oppressed Yemenis, not to leave them at the mercy of the Saudi savage air attacks –
the Yemenis should not be denied support just as we Iranians were denied arms by the civilized world while we had come under Saddam's
savage military attack in the 1980s.
What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal
regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from
any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder
in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy
and double standards!?
Not good at it; even worse for it. But following in the hallowed tradition of Bush the Son's representative, Colin Powell.
Let's hope that even the British have figured out what's going on this time, and will not behave like Lapdog Blair.
Given no excuse at all for waging war, the US will invent one. Past time it was called on this, by the the other 192 nations
in the UN
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that IRan should reverse."
WHY is it terrible? Someone should and MUST help the Houthis / Yemen PATRIOTS! No one else is helping them, NOT the U.N .and
certainly, what use are they, if they don't prevail on the Saud.Arab. to stop the war.
Not even the Russians are helping the Yemenis.
It isn't even a war, because a war means two sides fighting, but in the case of Yemen, it's a matter of the Yemenis defending
themselves. And it's the innocent civilians, women and children, as well as the civilian men, suffering and dying.
So the matter at hand is the Arab invasion, NOT where the missile came from.
The whole thing is a U.S. distraction from the Saudi invasion. And Haley frothing at the mouth, does a good job of distraction.
You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she
needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how.
She was mentioned to replace Tillerson as Sec of State, probably at her instigation. She knows T loves her style so she can
do as she pleases, like flying with fanfare to see IAEA DG Amano in Vienna – where there is still no Ambassador. But you can bet
her ambition is to be the first US woman President, to show the Clinton clan how that is done.
Unfortunately but necessarily, it will be important to 'put her in her place' in as many media fora as possible. Reza, you
made a good contribution!
Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US
Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all
the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy.
As Mr. Zarif has said, we all have seen this show before and are not impressed with it. Noticeably, what has really been changed
is yours and NIAC' analysis and opinions on US policies, especially ever since the failure of US' green color revolution back
in 09.
However, IMO, you and NIAC, owe an explanation on what made you change your opinion of US intentions for Iran, after you left
the DOS, if you seek support of expatriate Iranians for your efforts.
I'd nominate this as the understatement of the year for 2017. But someone's got to point out the obvious and Reza Marashi nailed
it.
Pity I can't link to a couple of articles on Haley's past incarnations as Governor of South Carolina or accountant to her parents'
clothing boutique business so that readers can see Haley's talent for being truly abysmal at whatever she turns her hand to.
"... Earlier Friday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the US ran counter to common sense while Russia warned that US recognition may lead to escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and called on all parties to show restraint. ..."
"... Turkish sources said Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Turkey next week to discuss recent developments surrounding Jerusalem and the situation in Syria with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The Kremlin verified the visit and said the leaders will discuss "important international problems." ..."
"... Erdoğan and Putin spoke on the phone Thursday and concurred the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as capital will negatively impact the peace process and the region's stability. ..."
United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Friday the "status of Jerusalem was not final" and that it will be some
time before the US is able to move its embassy to from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, pursuant to President Donald Trump's speech earlier
this week recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's
capital and announcing the planned embassy move. Any final decision on the status of Jerusalem will depend on negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, Tillerson said, appearing
to add nuance to President Trump's decision.
"With respect to the rest of Jerusalem the president ... did not indicate any final status for Jerusalem," Tillerson said, speaking
at a news conference in Paris alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.
... ... ...
Earlier Friday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by the US ran
counter to common sense while Russia warned that US recognition may lead to escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and
called on all parties to show restraint.
Turkish sources said Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit Turkey next week to discuss recent developments surrounding
Jerusalem and the situation in Syria with his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The Kremlin verified the visit and said
the leaders will discuss "important international problems."
Erdoğan and Putin spoke on the phone Thursday and concurred the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as capital will negatively
impact the peace process and the region's stability.
"... Fred: It's assuming that the "professional diplomats" who gave us the Iraq War and the Maiden Demonstrations in Ukraine call Trump irresponsible! I think Trump is doing a Gulfies. Besides the Mother of Arms Deals with the Kingdom of Horrors, he's just got Bahrain to buy another batch of F-16's they don't need. ..."
"... Trump said he was going to make the Gulfies pay for our protection. And that is what he is doing. Now if he could only make the Zionists pay..... ..."
On this side of the water, my prediction that Tillerson would be gone by end of year appears
to be coming true.
Reports say Trump is going to throw Tillerson under the bus - like all his other
supporters - and replace him with CIA's Mike Pompeo. Senator Cotter - a torture and drone
advocate - will replace Pompeo at CIA
So now we'll have a CIA head in charge at State. I'm totally sure that will improve US
diplomacy with North Korea, Russia, China, etc...
Those people who kept saying Trump had some master plan to save us were right - it entails
throwing out anyone NOT advocating war with most of the nuclear powers on the planet.
Zizi controlled US media, like the NYT and CNN really want Rex Tillerson out, they are paving
the way for him to leave, and have decided who they like to replace him, both candidates for
the state and CIA are supper neocon protectors of Zionism in US, and totally anti Iran.
This is the second, or perhaps third, report of Tillerson getting "thrown under the bus".
I would say the Borg are having their policy narrative systematicly destroyed by Trump and
they are desperate to at least create, or at least maintain, an image of turmoil in the
executive branch.
Do you think that POTUS ordered CENTCOM to cut off arms supplies to the Kurds in order to
start a war with nuclear powers? It seems to me this action does the complete opposite of
that - it dramatically reduces the chance of war with Russia.
"Those people who kept saying Trump had some master plan to save us were right" Maybe not a master plan, but Trump may well be marching to a tune that you can not
hear. Take his refusal to certify the JCPOA as stipulated by Congress.
Q: Did he follow that up by tearing up the JCPOA?
A: No, he didn't. He threw the problem back to Congress, who look like a deer caught in some
headlights.
He is also expected (either this time or the next) to refuse to sign the waiver regarding
moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
Q: Will he then follow up by actually, you know, moving that embassy?
A: My guess is he won't, and he'll dare Congress to make something of it.
I really think that there is a pattern to his behaviour, and it isn't the behaviour of a
slave to "the establishment". It looks more like he is throwing that establishment off-balance by saying, in essence,
that he isn't interested in playing their silly games, and by doing so he exposes those games
as.... silly.
Certifying the JCPOA is a burden, and he simply shrugs it off.
Waiving the Embassy move is a burden, and he'll just shrug it off. Every time he does so he exposes Congressional politicking that are an irrelevance - an
instance of Congress sticking its nose where it doesn't belong - and that's no bad thing. Just my take, but I really don't think Trump is who you think he is.
Fred: It's assuming that the "professional diplomats" who gave us the Iraq War and the Maiden
Demonstrations in Ukraine call Trump irresponsible! I think Trump is doing a Gulfies. Besides the Mother of Arms Deals with the Kingdom of
Horrors, he's just got Bahrain to buy another batch of F-16's they don't need.
Trump said he was going to make the Gulfies pay for our protection. And that is what he is
doing. Now if he could only make the Zionists pay.....
Washington (AFP) - The United States does not intend to disrupt European business deals with
Iran, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in comments published Friday.
...
"The president's been pretty clear that it's not his intent to interfere with business deals
that the Europeans may have under way with Iran," Tillerson told The Wall Street Journal.
"He's said it clearly: 'That's fine. You guys do what you want to do.'"
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia --
...
Speaking during a visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr. Tillerson said, "Both of our countries believe
that those who conduct business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, any of their entities
-- European companies or other companies around the globe -- really do so at great risk ."
Mr. Tillerson appeared at a brief news conference in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with the
Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir.
...
Mr. Tillerson's remarks were the administration's most pointed warning to date ...
This not the way to get the European Union in line with U.S. policies. So what is going on
here?
Trump in often inconsistent in what he says. That is his privilege. But it does not mean
that the Secretary of State has to contradict himself each and every day. It is Tillerson's
task to project a steady foreign policy. If there is none - for whatever reason - he must keep
his comments vague. Contradictions like the above make him a joke.
'Rexxon' has experience in doing international businesses. He knows that consistency is one
of the most important factors in getting things done. No one will make deals with a party that
changes its mind every other day.
So why is Tillerson jumping around like this? He seeks to replace Ms. Jubeir as court jester
in Riyadh? Or does he want to sabotage his own position?
One inevitably gets the impression that Tillerson wants out. That he wants to chuck his job
rather sooner than later. That he longs for the inevitable day he will be fired.
Tillerson is a realist at heart. He is no fan of Netanyahoo. He despises the fake human
rights blabber others use to hide their motives. The neo-conservatives would love to see him
go. Josh Rogin
lists their favorite candidates:
The most popular parlor game in Washington right now is speculating who will replace Rex
Tillerson as President Trump's next secretary of state ... two qualified and apparently
willing candidates have emerged. ... The top two contenders, Ambassador to the United Nations
Nikki Haley and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, ...
Haley is way too loud and
incompetent . Pompeo is too narrow minded.
I wonder who the White House junta
will prefer as new Secretary of State. One from its own stable? David Petraeus?
He would be another nail in the coffin of Trump's presidency.
Posted by b on October 23, 2017 at 09:28 AM |
Permalink
My understanding is that both Mattis and Dunford also favor continuing with the Iran
agreement. It is also not yet clear that Congress will actually pass any serious new
sanctions on Iran in the 60 days available to it.
As for Trump firing Tillerson, I doubt it. Tillerson might decide to quit on his own, and
i would not blame him, but I don't think Trump will fire him. The last thing he wants is
another brutal confirmation hearing in the Senate. Or to pick a traditional neocon to avoid
one.
My guess is that the only reason Mattis, McMaster, Dunford, and Kelly are supposedly in
support of the Iran deal is because they know Trump is horrible at foreign policy and that
war with Iran under Trump would be a bigger disaster than the other middle east escapades of
the last decade. If any other republican, including Pence, was at the helm, they'd be all for
de-certification and escalation. Trump is such a liability that they have been pushed towards
realism, but are not committed deeply to its principles. Tillerson may actually be much more
of a realist at heart, which, despite his bumbling, contradictions, and impotence, makes him
better than pretty much any other possible Secretary of States that the Trump administration
would offer up.
Tillerson says that dealing with Iran and with businesses in Iran is fine; dealing with the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not okay. I see nothing inconsistent or contradictory in that.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard owns and conducts business separately from the government as
a whole, and it certainly is separate from Iranian businesses.
How pathetic. The US is in denial about its Operation Iraqi Freedom which converted Iraq to
an Iran ally.
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arrived in Riyadh on Saturday to attend a
landmark meeting between officials from Saudi Arabia and Iraq aimed at improving relations
between the two countries and countering Iran's growing regional influence.
theyre not replacing him with the Israeli stooge and disaster that is Nikki Haley. She was
Trumps gift to Netenyahu at the UN because he needs Israeli lobbyist support at home
unfortunately. But the people running the country are Kelly and Mattis and they are not ok
with a costly war with Iran (thankfully). they're more pragmatic. Nikki as Secretary of State
would have a hard time even getting anyone to sit down and negotiate with her. Look at how
awful our relations are with Iran and Russia and yet both have sat down with Tillerson out of
respect for the man (even knowing he has almost no sway with the President). that same
courtesy isnt going to be given to a war mongering nutjob like Haely. Pompeo is a poor choice
as well he comes across as too impatient and thin skinned for that job.
I agree the junta will look within its stable at one of its own. Would also be easier to
get one of them approved by a very hostile Congress as well
thanks b... the usa position at this point on the world stage is in disarray... whether that
is the result of trump, or trump is a byproduct of it all, i can't tell.. however, tillerson
will be fed to the neo con lions like all others including trump at some point.. the neo con
agenda must be fed!
The problem that plagues Tillerson is the same that plagued Kerry--Despite its being
published, they cannot publicly acknowledge the actual Imperial Policy of the Outlaw US
Empire, to attain Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people which began under
Clinton attempting to bring into reality GHW Bush's New World Order--the standing policy is
illegal under both Domestic and International Law. So, there is no stated policy because it
cannot be stated, leaving Tillerson and Kerry before him looking like uneducated fools. Rice,
on the other hand, was effective since she had no qualms about that policy since she's one of
its designers, which is why she's a War Criminal. There was never any debate over the current
Imperial Policy formulation. Indeed, it merely brought together several disparate policy
threads that had been in place since WW2's end. Of course, what plagues Tillerson in no way
shackles other nations policy responses, although the public announcement of the Outlaw US
Empire's policy doesn't occur as often as it ought to when a nation seeks to justify its
policy, and when it occurs it's censored by the Empire's Propaganda System.
I don't want my country Greece doing bussines with the islamic oppresive Iranian
government.
HOW CAN GERMAN OLIGARCHS OF BRUSSELS/BERLIN SPEAK FOR THE REST OF US EU COUNTRIES?
We want out of this we suffered enough!
Did y'all catch this? The US State Department admitted for the first time that our "rebels in
Syria use chemical weapons against civilians.
From their Travel Warning on 10/18/17
"Tactics of ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and other violent extremist groups include the use
of suicide bombers, kidnapping, small and heavy arms, improvised explosive devices, and
chemical weapons. They have targeted major city centers, road checkpoints, border crossings,
government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces, in Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara,
Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr provinces. These groups have murdered and kidnapped U.S.
citizens, both for ransom and political purposes; in some instances U.S. citizens have
disappeared within Syria."
Actually b, BFD. It matters not who the latest "puppet jesters" are in D.C., policies are
decided by the puppeteers, not the puppets. Thus it is today in the U$A..
Yes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not the Iranian economy. This probably has more to do
with Trump mumbling about listing the IRG as a terrorist organization.It was dumb of b to
ignore this in his blog, although the gist of his bog on Tillerson is probably true.
The US is clinically insane. But you can't kick them out of the party just yet. I think we're
all waiting for them to fall on their own sword somehow. But they've lost the one thing that
was going for them. Fear.
Rodham may not seem stupid either, but she and Trump are venal elitists and borderline
psychopaths. Your choice last November was between ZioWarPigA and ZioWarPigB, Trump even
joked about it afterward at a rally, how easily he conned everyone, and everyone kept
cheering.
No Wall, (Open Border Legal Immigration); No Tax Cuts (making SS and MC means tested); No
Infrastructure (runaway MIC War Pig spending); No Healthcare (cut $1.5T from MC runaway cost
hikes); World Wars on Two Fronts and 183 Countries. Trump is one dumb MFr if he thinks the
Emperor has clothes.
Tillerson's function was to ensure that the energy industry which had given agent orange huge
support in his campaign, got an operative in a senior position in the trump regime. Tillerson
a major player in the world of rapacious capitalism, in a way that orange could never be,
disturbs the trumpeter because he makes trump feel so inconsequential.
Lets face it given a choice between access to energy or a golf course, most humans will
always pick energy, so that appart from being considerably wealthier and more powerful than
the idjit, it is highly likely Tillerson is also a helluva a lot smarter, more deceitful and
even less empathetic. About the only edge old comb-over has is that tillerson is exceedingly
short, something that the vain one doubtless exploits in any face to faces the two have.
Tillerson may want out because it is pretty clear his one position secretary of state even
though traditionally a powerful one, has been marginalised by the seeming unity of the
junta this is compounded by agent orange's inability to 'stay in his lane' the
demarcations of cabinet responsibility mean nothing to the unstructured, reactive fool in the
WH.
Even so I doubt tillerson will be in a hurry to pull the pin, even if that is because the
energy capitalists are terrified at what a vengeful trump may do to their meticulously
designed system for separating all humans from all the rewards of their endeavours. Tillerson
will be under considerable pressure from his co-conspirators to hang in long enough that
agent orange will be relieved to see the back of him, rather than him shoot through when the
creep is so desperate.
From tillerson's point of view that probably feels like never, but all prezs get brief
glimpses of glory if they hang in and despite trumps predilection for screwing himself before
he cops the accolades, there will come a time when he does something that wins grudging
admiration from the media barons.
In the meantime tillerson will spend as much time as possible with his old mates the
thieves of Riyadh, without whom exxon mobil would just be a chain of decrepit
'service-stations'. Doubtless they are planning all sorts of scams and rorts, although it
will be difficult for them to realise their latest greeds without support from the amerikan
military. Africa, a sporadically and haphazardly developed continent likely features large in
all resource thieves dreams.
There's no fuel for war. Luckily DT has sufficient bluster that no one has dumped Ratheon
beyond where the CB is still willing to buy.
Iran is a corporation to these people. The proverbial Pepsi to the Coke 'debate.' As
military finances move towards pensions and away from new ground forces, the bluster will
need to mind its believability. No one fears the twitter tiger.
Eventually, when those $6T losses come back on shore, the spending power drop will squeeze
foreign entanglements too. It's always new market development that gets cut first.
I think Rex is the most grounded guy in the cabinet. I tend to think he will only eat so much
shit before he bails.
He's had Trump tell him he's wasting his time with Korea on Twitter. He's had Trump
undermine him on air, said he wished he was tougher. Tillerson has already called Trump a
fucking moron out of pure exasperation. He has been at the helm of bigger outfits than Trump
ever dreamed of, except the presidency. He can watch day by day the pure ineptness of his
boss and must often wonder why he accepted the job.
So I think b is right about him waiting to get out. But I will miss his low-key gravitas.
I think he and Lavrov could have seen eye to eye. I even think he might have made some
headway with Kim if Trump wasn't so utterly unhinged. Imagine fucking with millions of lives
as cavalierly as the Donald. Still has his fans though.
Is the country of Iran an "entity" of the IRG? Or is the IRG an entity of Iran? In any case,
it is off putting and can't be conducive to stability in the vaunted "markets" or anything
else. Who the fock wants to engage in business with a country that the USA, lapdog UK and
Israel have earmarked for surprise aerial shock'n ya'll?
Really dumb statements from the Tiller. A guy that supposedly understands markets.
"... Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... "The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea. ..."
"... "When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said. ..."
"... If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job. ..."
"... It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc. ..."
"... Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country. ..."
"... And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities ..."
"... Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades. ..."
"... I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit. ..."
"... Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'. ..."
"... Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational. ..."
"... Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy. ..."
"... Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession. ..."
"... I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen. ..."
"... It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements. ..."
Bob Corker accuses the president of undercutting the secretary of state's efforts to rein in
North Korea's nuclear program
US Republican senator Bob Corker stepped up his public feud with Donald Trump on Friday,
saying the president's undermining of his secretary of state was like castrating him in
public.
Corker told the Washington Post in an interview that Trump had undercut Rex Tillerson's
efforts to enlist China in reining in North Korea's nuclear program by denigrating the
diplomat.
"You cannot publicly castrate your own secretary of state" without limiting the options for
dealing with North Korea, Corker, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, told
the Post.
Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly
communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no
interest in dialogue.
Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate
with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.
"The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they
have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are
phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall
apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North
Korea.
"When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker
said.
Artgoddess 14 Oct 2017 17:05
Tillerson gets A LOT of $ if he lasts a year. Mnuchin, too.
humdum 14 Oct 2017 14:55
If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective.
Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He
doesn't need the job.
LibtardMangina -> imipak 14 Oct 2017 13:06
Like Sadam had no WMDs yet George and Tony pretended they cared whether they were there or
not and went in guns blazing. We're still trying to pick up the pieces. Thanks guys. Dozza's
adventures in NK is the next instalment of this shit show.
willyjack -> lochinverboy 14 Oct 2017 12:54
"This is the low point in America's political history"
It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam,
assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.)
I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War,
Andrew Johnson, etc.
ConBrio -> CorvidRegina 14 Oct 2017 12:16
She came, she manipulated the nomination process, she lost! Get over it the precipitous
canonization of damaged goods and try to elect someone competent. She ain't risin again.
CorvidRegina -> Abusedbythestate 14 Oct 2017 11:30
politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear
That is the true culprit here. The role of politicians has always been to protect the
country, including from its own citizens. Every politician makes use of some fear as a
rhetorical tool, but the American conservatives really took this to a whole new level; they
found an easy and lazy way to keep their support bolstered, by conflating the very worst
traits of the ignorant and gullible with moral, even religious, superiority.
Of course they now consider themselves superior to even the politicians that fed them.
It's hard to feel much pity.
john ayres -> colacj 14 Oct 2017 11:18
[Edited for clarity] Anyone other then primate chosen for this position would outshine
him. Leave at the Russia BS. It is the result of $2B of propaganda from US agencies.
DAW188 14 Oct 2017 11:02
On an international scale what should probably be concerning American voters more than it
is, are the US allies that appear to be pivoting away from them and towards each other. With
an incompetent ninny of a POTUS and absolutely no clear military or diplomatic direction it
is unsurprising that other global players are looking to each other for some security. The
latest fallout over the Iran deal will only exasperate it.
I imagine it has caused some of the diplomats and bureaucrats in Washington to sit up and
feel concerned. But as most US news reporting (even from internationally regarded
publications like the NYT) seems to look no further than the end of its nose, I doubt its
getting much, if any, play amongst US voters.
A fine example of this would be the machinations of the recent meetings between Theresa May
and Shinzo Abe. They represent two of the closest political, economic and military allies of
the US and are arguably key to the US' Atlantic and Pacific spheres of influence. Both
countries find themselves in a bit of a bind. May turns up with a big empty bag labelled
trade deals and Abe greets her with a tin-helmet on fearing a NK missile might drop on his
head at any moment and that the US administration is not reliable enough to step in and
diffuse the tension as it has in the past.
Abe conveniently has a country full of investors who would quite like to get access to the
UK to buy up business on the cheap. May had a few hundred nuclear warheads in her back pocket
that are all transferable anywhere in the world undetected and underwater (say for example in
the South China Sea or the Sea of Japan), as well as a large intelligence agency and a UN
security council seat. Not hard to see how tempting it would be for the two to cut a deal.
The speech that the two leaders gave at the end of their little summit spelt it out. Abe
bigged up Brexit, the opportunities it would afford and the strength of the Anglo-Nippon
economic partnership, whilst May reaffirmed British commitments to defend its ally Japan's
interests in a big two fingers up to Beijing and Pyongyang. Suddenly the US has two powerful
allies turning away from it and towards each other, providing support that the US was once a
bridge for.
This isn't restricted to the UK or Japan. Look at Macron in France and Merkel in Germany.
Trudeau in Canada and Pena Nieto in Mexico. Even loyal old Bibi is getting in on the act when
he recently invited India's Modi around for tea in Jerusalem.
Then you have theoretical allies, that have questionable intentions. Qatar and the Saudis
remain at each others throats. The Emir of Qatar (or should that be his mother, the former
Queen Moza, the power behind the curtain) certainly seems increasingly enamored with the
Iranian's. Whilst the tensions in the Gulf are the way they are, it may not be the time to
try and up-end again the relationship with Iran.
mbidding -> JEM5260 14 Oct 2017 11:00
Fifty years of the GOP putting party before country is how too many voters have been duped
and misinformed.
Fifty years of Nixon's Southern Strategy and subsequent dog whistle politics aimed at
convincing "real" Americans that people of color, liberals, intellectuals, and secular
humanists are out to destroy their way of life and are the causes of all their woes.
Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and
business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics
which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly,
divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a
primarily Christian country.
Thirty five years of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by which "news" has become nothing
more than politically propagandized infotainment.
And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is
strongest in small, rural communities -- communities with no experience with diversity of any
type (political, economic, and social). These folks have been groomed by the GOP for fifty
years to believe that liberal policies and non whites are out to get them and only the GOP
and business have their backs.
Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing
incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic
lies the GOP's been peddling for decades.
LibtardMangina 14 Oct 2017 10:44
I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an
agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as
pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his
bullshit.
Abusedbythestate -> Conradsagent 14 Oct 2017 08:23
It will still end in tears for the yanks - a powerful military will not save the dollar -
change is the one constant in the universe - where is the roman empire, the British empire,
the Portuguese and Spanish empires, the Venetian empire now???? No one state stays the top
dog for ever.
The rest of the world will see to that - the British and Europe are starting to
look East and Trump is helping them do that to become so isolated, the US will become a
backwater as quick as the USSR collapsed almost overnight. It only takes one extra straw to
break the camel's back
Abusedbythestate -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 08:19
Indeed - I have many German friends and we talk about how any group of people in a nation
can vote a nutter into power - Hitler being one of the most in(famous). At the end of the
day, in all of the world in every nation state, there are a lot of very dumb people - the
majority of the electorate to a greater or lesser degree - it's not their fault - we are all
born entirely ignorant and our culture forms our opinions and our ability to question - do
you remember how often at school, you were encouraged to question anything? or were facts,
facts?
Pile on top of that a very powerful media, politicians playing on people's fears and
telling them what they want to hear, and people's general gullibility and it's no great
surprise that the Germans voted for Hitler, the Yanks voted for Trump and our dumb country
voted .... well, vote the way they do - the fact that people seem happy with our so called
democracies around the world that are far from democratic, depending on definition, and where
we're often given a choice of just one or two options that seem incredibly similar in policy
compared to the vast possible alternatives on how to run a country/economy - heaven forbid we
might attempt an "extreme" alternative!!!
3melvinudall 14 Oct 2017 08:18
It seems some Republicans have decided now is the time to take down Trump. From what the
country has seen of how Trump does "business" better to take him on now than deal with the
disastrous consequences of his failures. Captain Trump is taking the ship down with his
incompetence...problem is: we are all on that ship.
Gytaff -> Mordicant 14 Oct 2017 07:48
Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the
US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased.
That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'.
The Trump base doesn't give a toss about 'worldwide economic momentum', they only see what
is happening in their own back yards. This is why Trump is doing well with his base, they see
his posturing against North Korea, Iran and Syria as strength, they see his threats to trade
deals as protectionist and have absolutely no problem with it, it's perfectly aligned with
their views and mindset.
The Democrats are going to have a serious battle in the mid-terms, they need to find a way
to appeal to the common man and give them what Trump keeps promising to deliver (but not, so
far!). They need to show that they, as elitists can empathize with the common man's position,
needs and beliefs, sadly the democrats have a long way to go! The Republicans are also
screwed as Trump_vs_deep_state is anathema to their candidates too.
The next 12 months are going to be 'interesting times'!
Conradsagent -> ConBrio 14 Oct 2017 07:34
The US is one of the most fundamentalist, extreme religious whack job countries on the
planet.
As for addiction to US protection...it is also one of the most (if not, the most)
dangerously confused countries on earth. The world needs protecting 'from' it...not by it
corneilius -> pruneau 14 Oct 2017 07:24
Exactly the same can be said of the Tory party in the UK, especially the belief that you
run a national economy on the same principles of a household budget.
saintkiwi -> Prumtic 14 Oct 2017 07:23
I think half the cabinet and half of Congress may actually go along with it; we know from
whispers around the White House and Washington that many, if not most, Republicans think
Trump is temperamentally/psychologically unfit for the post. Maybe Corker is the crack in the
dam that eventually leads to catastrophic failure and flood; maybe not.
Pence is a total stiff, though. No way such a conservative guy would implement such an
historic and radical action as forcibly* removing a sitting president, no matter how nuts
that C-in-C was.
*(and yes, I can envisage Tump literally having to be dragged from the Oval Office)
UB__DK 14 Oct 2017 07:02
I hope the 25th amendment is on the agenda behind the scenes. It is clear to everyone that
the president is unqualified. He is steadily eroding the credibility of the office he holds
and of the entire West on the international political scene. And the longer his removal is
delayed the worse it will get.
BeenThereDunThat -> ClearlyNow 14 Oct 2017 06:39
Oh dear, another Trumpkin. I am no fan of Merkel - a neoliberal to her boots. But at least
she has some humanity and actually cares for other members of the human race outside of her
immediate family - and to be honest, I doubt the Tango Tyrant cares for his family other than
their being a projection of his own narcissistic ego.
As for Germany, its economy still marches along with it being the number 4 economy in the
world and the top of the G5 group. It's standard of living remains high while social
inequality is far lower than in countries such as the US or the UK.
So sorry, but another pathetically failed straw-man - or in this case, straw-woman -
attempt to deflect attention from the discussion at hand.
Ramas100 14 Oct 2017 05:49
It's the military generals who are stroking Trump's ego by telling him there is a military
solution to N Korea and Iran.
RichWoods -> blairsnemesis 14 Oct 2017 05:47
but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever.
Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks
foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but
that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent
and irrational.
All those things were apparent during the election campaign, so whatever your politics you
have no excuse if you voted for someone who is so patently unfit to hold public office.
blairsnemesis -> FrankRoberts 14 Oct 2017 05:23
I suspect he realised before he even took up the post that he was far too thick for the
job. Reagan was an appalling bag of shit but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold
the post, ever. I only hope that if someone doesn't kill him (and they'd have my full backing
because he is an immense threat to the world), he gets put behind bars, along with the rest
of his thick-as-pigshit family, for life.
Prumtic -> HelpAmerica 14 Oct 2017 05:14
Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said
that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word
is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he
makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win
approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as
Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no
empathy.
MortimerSnerd 14 Oct 2017 05:11
Just trying to keep the faith here until the mid terms. Trump is more bluster than balls,
and he is not The Emperor. There are checks and balances in the system and the system has
thwarted him on many occasions.
peterxpto -> LondonFog 14 Oct 2017 05:03
Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery
from worldwide recession.
Kevin Cox -> WhigInterpretation 14 Oct 2017 04:46
Well said. Regarding Congress, people do not understand the way the US is hobbled by a
constitution that facilitates the lobbying of special interests - so long as it is not the
labor movement - and which is very, very hard to change. So much for the Founding Fathers and
what they accomplished and made difficult to alter.
tippisheadrun -> simba72 14 Oct 2017 04:29
Absolutely.
President Ted Cruz, President Mike Huckabee, President Ben Carson, President Chris Christie,
President Rick Santorum, President Marco Rubio - take your prick - none of them would promote
any sense of security in the populace. With the exception of John Kasich, the GOP nominee was
destined to be a dangerous character- either through lack of scruples or a misguided sense of
their own righteousness.
daWOID -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:53
Fun fact: "the lifestyle of the good citizens of Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, West
Virginia and Texas etc., etc" collapsed a long time ago.
juster digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:50
The dollar is not going to stay the reserve currency forever. Its just math. If an average
chinese can reach 25% productivity of an average amreican, and there is no reason they cant,
they will have by all metrics the largest economy. At that stage USD keeping its present day
status is impossible even if Abraham Lincoln gets revived an re elected.
charles47 -> RealityCheck2016 14 Oct 2017 02:22
I am involved in negotiations every day of my working life, with staff, with Trustees
(directors), with local authorities, with suppliers.
I have good working relationships with most of them. Must be doing something right, while
doing a job that matters to me personally. I've met Trump types. They wouldn't last five
minutes in the world I live and work in. Too "entitled" and far too full of themselves.
Generally, if I come across someone like that, they don't get our business because they are
long on promise, short on delivery, and more interested in getting the "deal" than
considering our needs as an organisation - which is the selling point I look for, as with
most people. One-sided deals don't work and don't last.
As for affording to go to a Trump hotel...if I could, I wouldn't. I have my favourites,
and my personal standards that don't involve glitter without substance.
jon donahue -> BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 01:57
Iran. At about 10,000 dead, it could go on for about three years with beaucoup contracts
to be had. Perfect for all the flag-wavers.
Korea? No. Too many dead too fast, could run up to 25,000 in a hurry. Plus, Seoul smoked.
Bad optics, no money in it...
jon donahue 14 Oct 2017 01:52
Trump is a train wreck. Incompetent. Unable to manage, unable to negotiate, unable to
govern.
The good news is that we don't actually need a functioning President, with the world
pretty much at peace and the economy doing well enough.
Everybody in the government and military can just work around the jerk.
digamey 14 Oct 2017 01:38
Republicans are experts at protecting their own butts. While Trump's numbers hold, they
will bitch about him in private and suck up to him in public. Once his numbers start to tank,
as inevitably they will, they will turn upon him and savage him in a manner with which even
the most voracious hyenas could not compete.
BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 00:38
I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who
says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives
profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and
Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in
that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War
is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at
home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will
happen.
Mike Bray 13 Oct 2017 23:37
It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes
on Donald Trump's statements.
Why everybody is encritically repeating the rumors about this "moron" story.
Tillerson denies he weighed resigning or called boss 'moron', Fox Oc4, 2017 What if this
is an insinuation, an attempt to undermine Trump ? Not that Trump behaviour in foreign policy area
does not deserve some really strong epithet, but still Tillerson comes from corporate
environment and he knows all two well consequences of uttering such a word even in "private, which
is never private about your boss.
Defense Priorities think tank from which Daniel R. DePetris ytoed t steer the USA
away from interventions in overseas wars and state a the mission: "To inform citizens,
thought leaders, and policy makers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military - used more
judiciously to protect America's narrowly defined national interests - and promote a realistic
grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure American security." and
does have some unorthodox speakers (including
Andrew Bacevich) and try to address important
Issues - Defense Priorities
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was watching his back, knowing full well that the more vocal and ambitious Nikki Haley was likely itching for a promotion (Haley denies wanting Tillerson's job, but does anyone really believe that?). ..."
"... If Trump ever promotes Haley he'll lose my vote. She's bad news – ignorant, incompetent, with lots of bad friends. To the extent that Tillerson is saving us from that, all to the good. ..."
"... Maybe he was a good corporate CEO – I do not know. But no other administration would have nominated him for Secretary of State. Robert MacNamara was an Air Corps Colonel in WW II and a Harvard economics wizard when he was plucked from a brief tenure at Ford. He helped JFK to stare-down the generals who wanted to start WW III over Cuba. Tillerson is no MacNamara. ..."
"... Rex Tillerson has done a very good job so far. A lot of the problem is that he has inherited a terrible mess. A terrible terrible mess. Also Qatar did support Al Nusra. Its just that all the Gulf States are pretty much guilty of supporting terrorism. It should have been confronted but in a more diplomatic way. We are Americans shouldn't we hate Al Qaeda and be angry at those who support it? I'd almost favor nuking the Gulf States out of revenge. ..."
All the stock Tillerson built up over the spring is now largely gone. The summer and fall
were enormously tough times for the Secretary of State. Trump's undiplomatic tweets on
everything from Qatar to North Korea helped undercut Tillerson's diplomatic endeavors before
they'd even started. Back home, Tillerson received incoming from all quarters on Capitol Hill
over his State Department budget proposal, a
$10 billion reduction from the previous fiscal year. And within the administration,
Tillerson was watching his back, knowing full well that the more vocal and ambitious
Nikki Haley was likely itching for a promotion (Haley
denies wanting Tillerson's job, but does anyone really believe that?).
In short, it's been largely downhill for Tillerson lately. Today, people all but assume that
he'll either put in his papers for early retirement or be pushed out. Calling your boss (or
widely reported that you called your boss) "
a moron " to your colleagues in private and then getting challenged to an IQ test by the
president of the United States are not exactly the circumstances of great job security.
How did it get so bad for Tillerson so quickly? Does he even want the job anymore, or is he
burned out? Those are the questions that the Washington news media obsesses about. In the end,
though, all of them are secondary to this one: What will the administration lose if Tillerson
leaves?
Pundits and columnists make a decent living in the criticism business, and there's plenty to
criticize about Rex Tillerson. But there are also things that Tillerson has gotten right. Along
with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly, there's no doubt that
Tillerson is a crucial member of the administration's pragmatic wing. Using the phrases "axis
of adults" and "adults in the room" has become a common trope in Washington these days, but it
rings true on foreign policy, where Tillerson has beaten the drum of diplomacy as loud as he
possibly can. Indeed, this is likely a major reason why friends and associates of Tillerson
think he's worn out -- no matter how loud he bangs that drum, his best efforts get foiled by
off-the-cuff remarks and 140-character statements.
To say that Tillerson is the most vital member of Trump's national security cabinet would be
a stretch, but he is definitely a restraining influence. On the dispute between Qatar and its
Gulf Arab neighbors, Tillerson has eagerly embraced the role
of mediator , traveling to and from Riyadh, Doha, and Kuwait City this past summer to
grease the skids for a diplomatic resolution. Unfortunately, as Mark Perry has reported
in these pages , Tillerson has been undermined by the White House from the start. It is
difficult to serve as a cool-headed mediator when the commander-in-chief practically labels
Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism.
Normally, a secretary of state's job begins and ends with diplomacy. But in Tillerson's
case, being a diplomat goes hand-in-hand with serving as the janitor, on hand to clean up the
mess.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
If Trump ever promotes Haley he'll lose my vote. She's bad news – ignorant,
incompetent, with lots of bad friends. To the extent that Tillerson is saving us from that,
all to the good.
When one steps back to see the bigger picture, it is frightening that we look for moderating
influence and stable guidance from someone who would usually be thought of as a spoof nominee
for his role.
Maybe he was a good corporate CEO – I do not know. But no other administration would
have nominated him for Secretary of State. Robert MacNamara was an Air Corps Colonel in WW II
and a Harvard economics wizard when he was plucked from a brief tenure at Ford. He helped JFK
to stare-down the generals who wanted to start WW III over Cuba. Tillerson is no
MacNamara.
Rex Tillerson has done a very good job so far. A lot of the problem is that he has inherited
a terrible mess. A terrible terrible mess. Also Qatar did support Al Nusra. Its just that all
the Gulf States are pretty much guilty of supporting terrorism. It should have been
confronted but in a more diplomatic way. We are Americans shouldn't we hate Al Qaeda and be
angry at those who support it? I'd almost favor nuking the Gulf States out of revenge.
What can Secretary of State Rex Tillerson do when there is a history of US Congresses and
Presidents are hostile to diplomacy? George W. Bush and Congress created the current North
Korea situation by being hostile. America cannot maintain an Empire because it does not have
a dictator which provides continuity of policy. Haley is a symptom and a product of the
insanity that inflicts the American ruling class. If Trump does not pursue an America First
foreign policy and instead pursues a George W. Bush foreign policy he will bear a terrible
legacy.
Read up on Rex Tillerson. He comes off as a very able, very smart, very impressive guy. This
administration is lucky to have him. I think they only have him because he believes he can be
of service to the American people, not because he admires Mr. Trump.
The question is, when will he decided that he, essentially single-handed, cannot make
enough of a difference to justify the personal costs of working with this band of lunatics.
Certainly I don't always agree with Tillerson's politics, but he always comes across as
solid, a man of integrity.
A poorly argued hit piece on Tillerson. The media and neocons are waging a campaign to
undermine him and get him out. Does TAC have to play into it by publishing this drivel?
If people think Hillary Clinton was an awful "Madam Secretary" (and she was), wait till Nikki
Haley gets the job. No doubt she'll "rubber stamp" every bad idea that Trump comes up with.
There's an under currant of Tillerson can't control Trump to this article that rubs me the
wrong way. Trump is a narcissistic ass and the thing about narcissistic assess they aren't
reasonable or controllable.
Nikki Haley Meltdown: Assad Must Go and War With North Korea!
by Daniel
McAdams Posted on
September 18, 2017 September 16, 2017 There must be something about being named US
Ambassador to the UN that brings out the inner mass murderer in people. Madeline Albright
famously admitted that she thought 500,000 dead Iraqi children due to US sanctions was "worth
it." John Bolton never met a disagreement he didn't want to turn into a war. Samantha Power
barked about human rights while her Administration's drones snuffed out human life in
unprecedented numbers. The real "butcher of the Balkans" Richard Holbrooke sold the
Yugoslavia war on lies . John
"Death Squad" Negroponte sold the lie that Saddam Hussein needed to be killed and his country
destroyed for democracy to flourish, and so on.
Considering how many millions of civilians have been killed on the war propaganda of US
ambassadors to the UN, perhaps the equivalent of another Holocaust could have been avoided if
Ron Paul's HR 1146 has passed
30 years ago.
But nothing could have prepared us for Nikki "Holocaust" Haley, who has thundered into the
Trump Administration as US Ambassador to the UN despite hating Trump and Trump hating
her . Why would President Trump pick someone for such an influential position despite her
being vocally and publicly opposed to the foreign policy that provided the margin of victory
for him? We can only guess. Was Trump lying on the campaign trail? Possibly. Does he not
bother to notice that he has surrounded himself with people who are deeply opposed, at the
DNA level, to the policies he ran and won on? Seems more likely. As Johnny Rotten famously ended the Sex Pistols run, "ever
get the feeling you've been cheated?"
In fact yes. One-time top Trump supporter Ann Coulter today Tweeted the question "is there
anyone out there left who doesn't want Trump impeached?"
Coulter meant the wall or something else, but she could just as well have been complaining
about the foreign policy about-face. Trump ran as a Ron Paul Republican, he governs as a
George W. Bush Republican. Cheated? Yes, once again.
Which brings us back to the odious Nikki Haley. Today she no doubt thought she was being
clever Tweeting in response to the
predictable fact that yet another round of sanctions against North Korea did not result in
Kim Jong-Un doing a Gaddafi suicide knife dance, that since the sanctions destroying the
North Korean economy – such as it is – have not resulted in Kim's surrender it
was time to hand the matter over to Defense Secretary James Mattis.
Said US top UN diplomat Nikki: "We cut 90% of trade & 30% of oil. I have no problem
kicking it to Gen. Mattis because I think he has plenty of options."
We killed their trade, we destroyed their oil imports and still they have the nerve to
defy us and not surrender so time for World War Three! That's Nikki. No foreign policy
experience beyond the fetid breath of the neocon "experts" whispering in her all-too-willing
ear.
But Nikki was not done today. After threatening a war on North Korea that would likely
leave ten or more thousand US troops dead, hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians
dead, and maybe another million North Koreans dead, she decided to opine on the utterly
failed six year US regime change operation in Syria. Today, as Deir Ezzor has finally been
liberated by the Syrian government from the scourge of ISIS, Nikki Haley chose to go on
record defending ISIS and al-Qaeda by repeating Obama's line
that Assad must go.
Ponder this for a minute: Assad has just defeated ISIS in Deir Ezzor. ISIS is the reason
the US has invaded Syrian sovereignty and initiated military action. Yet according to Nikki
Haley Assad's reward for wiping out ISIS is that he must be deposed – presumably in
favor of US-backed rebels who have been in bed with ISIS for six years!
Is Nikki Haley pro-ISIS? Is she pro-al-Qaeda? Is she evil or just stupid?
You decide.
But if she is not removed from office soon, she will be leading perhaps a million people
to their graves.
If Critics such as neocon
Max Boot are calling for him to resign, I want him to stay.
The "wrecking of the State Department" that By
Daniel Larison is concerned, is necessary as it is too infested with neocons
leftover from Hillary days, including cadre of female warmongers.
Also color revolutions zeal needs to be tamed.
Taking into account that Trump effectivly changed sided starting from infamous
Tomahawk attack, the nes round of sanctions for Russia and sabersrattling with Iran
and North Korea, it is difficult to forsee how the Secratary of State can be effective
with such a boss. Being a bully in the schoolyard was the policy the the USA sucessfully
tried for all presidencies since Reagan, so in a sense Trump is proud hier f this
noble tradition.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't. ..."
"... Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait. ..."
"... Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment. ..."
In less than seven months in the job, Tillerson has proven to be a feckless
manager of his organization and a poor handler of the president of the United
States. To be fair, even the savviest secretary of state would have his
or her hands full with a president like Trump. The sharp contrast between
Tillerson's fumblings and the more nimble footwork of Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis shows that Tillerson is the opposite of a good secretary of state.
Most of Trump's private-sector cabinet officials have been dreadful, but
Tillerson is the worst of the lot.
Tillerson has been presiding over the wrecking of the State Department ever
since he was confirmed, and he has very little else to show for his tenure.
It's safe to say that the demoralization and hollowing out of the department
will just keep getting worse the longer he is in charge. The trouble is that
replacing Tillerson probably won't change any of that, because the gutting of
the State Department has been and continues to be an administration priority.
The person Trump chooses to replace Tillerson is likely to have the same disdain
for diplomacy and diplomats that he has.
So while I am inclined to agree with the call for Tillerson's resignation,
I can't agree with Drezner when he says "I am no longer worried about who Trump
would pick to replace him." This is exactly what we should be worrying about.
Tillerson got the job at State in part because all of the other people Trump
was considering were so fanatical, ethically compromised, or otherwise awful
that he seemed the best of a bad lot at the time. That may have been true, but
that process produced one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern
times.
Now imagine Trump going through a similar process a second time. Is he likely
to choose someone more capable than Tillerson? Considering the state of Trump's
administration after just seven months, would anyone who fits that description
be willing to take the job? If there is someone willing, I am concerned Trump
would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with
military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet.
Tillerson reportedly never wanted the job, so it shouldn't take much to persuade
him to leave. That said, the damage already done to the State Department isn't
going to be repaired anytime soon, and as long as Trump is president we should
assume it will continue regardless. I have been very critical of how Tillerson
has been running his department, but as one his critics I think we should acknowledge
that his successor could still be even worse.
Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation
by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the
corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out
some don't.
Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted.
Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran
all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their
advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of
the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office
a new diplomat will have to wait.
"I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general
on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would
be at least one too many in this Cabinet."
And you should be concerned. Even setting aside the critical matter
of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society,
these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success,
or even sound judgment.
It has failed to win on multiple battlegrounds. Judging by the recent
Three Stooges performance of the Pacific Fleet, there are basic competency
issues at the highest levels of command. And now we learn that both Gens.
Mattis and McMaster strongly urged Trump to double down in Afghanistan,
one of the worst examples of judgment and decision-making in recent memory.
So far as I know, Tillerson had nothing to do with that idiocy, so I'd
leave him where he is and pray that Trump will eventually be disabused of
the instinct to defer to (or rather cringe before) his generals.
TBH, I can't figure out exactly why Tillerson has been so bad but I assume
his lack of experience of the State Department makes him a very poor choice
for President Trump. Judging by the Trump's administration G&G (General
& Goldman) cabinet is very experience expertise with Job-like patience is
needed to work with President Trump. Basically, it fits Drezner's toddler
comments that Mattis works well with Trump because Mattis knows a lot more
than the President and is willing to allow Trump to throw two hour tantrums
for his policy. It is to the point that we almost need Mattis to be Secretary
of State as at least we know that he can work with the President. (Dear
God is wrong to state that an ex-General be our chief Diplomat.)
However, one area where Tillerson does work well is he truly dislikes
taking media oxygen away from Trump so he may last awhile.
Why doesn't everyone resign and we'll make little "Billy" Kristol of the
Weekly Standard the official Emperor of United States? Tillerson is the
last voice of reason (and bulwark against the psychotic war mongering neocons)
lefy in Trump's Administration.
@collin: We've had at least two generals serve as Secretary of State before:
George Marshall and Colin Powell. And those are just two examples that I
can name off the top of my head. I would not be surprised to find out that
there have been other generals who served as our nation's Chief Diplomat.
Personally, I think Tillerson has been doing reasonably well at State. He
seems to be a very articulate, thoughtful person. Certainly I much prefer
Sec. Tillerson's ineffectiveness to Sec. Clinton's deadly effectiveness
in Libya.
As to the gutting of the State Department. Tillerson recently stated
that the hiring freeze was temporary and indeed announced a major hiring
initiative:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LynW4TmTU
There's probably an easily identifiable formula out there for who Trump
might chose as a Tillerson replacement, based on who donated to his campaign,
who has more money than Trump himself, and/or who has suspicious ties to
Russian interests. Rohrabacher? Royce?
Citing Max Boot instantly destroys any credibility of this "professor" and makes him more of
hired gyun, then a political commentator. With experts like max boot the only question is why
Wolfowitz in not the Secretary of state.
Neocons in State Department, like any powerful bureaucracy is going to fight tooth and nail to
keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying water for the neocons at State.
As for State Department, all diplomats who signed infamous "color revolution" style letter in
support of Hillary jingoism and neocon policies need to be eliminated from State Department if we
wnat the USA survive and prosper. So Tillerson action are not enough. Much deeper shake up is
needed by political forces for that are absent.
When reading comments you instantly understands why Washington is still an imperial capital...
And why neocon will lead the USA off the cliff is given a chance. The level of coments has
such an amazingly strong neocon tilt, that you can question sanity of some commenters. It also
shows the level of McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. For example "raylo 3:08 PM EDT [Edited] It's
like the Russians have moles in our government and are working to destroy it from the inside. Oh,
wait"
As of preserving the hegemon position of the USA is a realistic perspective and will not destroy
the USA or all the world, as this is forging alliance of the Russia and China among other
trends. BTW I did not find a single instance of the words of "neocon", "Neoconservatism",
and "neoliberalism" neither in the article, nor in the comments.
Notable quotes:
"... You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with politicians long before Trump. ..."
"... Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel. ..."
"... If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's remorse. ..."
"... The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really surprised? ..."
Critics such as
Max
Boot
are calling for him to resign. Axios is reporting that even President Trump is
apparently disenchanted with Tillerson.
... ... ...
If Trump no longer trusts Tillerson, then he has no other political goodwill to draw upon. He
has made zero deposits in Washington's favor bank.
Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of pretty
much everything else. This has led to some truly bizarre outcomes. His reliance on outside
consultants has led to much derision within the diplomatic corps
Tillerson is such
a bad manager
that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The State Department
has not spent $80 million
authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and Russian
propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is unwelcome
because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow,
according to a former senior State Department official." (
UPDATE:
A
State Department official wrote me after this post was published to say that last week, Tillerson
approved the release of $19.8 million from that fund. Politico reported
the same thing
this afternoon, also after this was published.) Furthermore, State has spurned
all of the
Council on Foreign Relations' International Affairs Fellows
. This is a program that makes
talented scholars freely available to U.S. foreign affairs agencies for a year. Council president
Richard Haass confirmed to me that State has not accepted any of this year's fellows, despite the
fact that they come with zero cost.
dennis827, 7:30 PM EDT
So a professor of something or other says the previous CEO
of Exxon is a bad manager? Yeah, makes sense.
dennis827, 8:22 PM EDT [Edited]
Tillerson is such a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The
State Department has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and
Russian propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is
unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would
anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official."
See, I don't think a professor understands a good manager doesn't understand "free" money
isn't really a thing. And I suppose I'm using "A" professor kinda like Game of Thrones speak.
zappa912, 7:18 PM EDT
Ouch!!! I must say this though, even with my non-expert knowledge of the intracies of the
operation of the State Department. If in reality, Tillerson is helping to keep Tweeter from
pulling the military trigger against North Korea or other international adversaries, then I
hope he at least stays around until Tweeter is gone from the Trump Dump House. Tillerson does
appear to me to at least be working to keep us out of military conflicts, which considering
the impulsiveness, intentional ignorance and frequent war like tone of the Tweeter, is a good
thing in my opinion.
Isaac 65, 6:00 PM EDT
If a Trump sycophant had replaced Tillerson we'd probably be at war with DPRK. Seriously,
list the sane people in the administration: Jim Mattis, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Rex
Tillerson - did I miss any?
akpat, 5:48 PM EDT
Critics such as Max Boot are calling for him to resign
)))
Who is max boot and who cares what they think
akpat, 5:43 PM EDT
Well Drezner I dont think it was Tillertson who brought us Egypt, Libya and Syria nor was
it him who brought Iraq, NK and Iran.
It was the other so called experts you like.
mmcind, 5:57 PM EDT
Actually, most of the significant increase in those problems can be traced to dick cheney,
war criminal.
berrymonster11, 5:09 PM EDT
An honorable man, whose sense of duty, respect and patriotism was developed in an entire of
life of service in the Boys Scouts. A successful businessman, who has led one the largest
companies in the world, and who knows how to deal with all kinds of people. I thought Mr
Tillerson would become a great Secretary of State.
What a disappointment!! Countless mistakes, from the very beginning.
On April 2017, the entire US-China relationship was defined at... Mar-a-Lago!!! The key
points: the US would not start a trade war with China; in exchange, China would ease whatever
problems Ivanka's business had over there... and try to talk to the North Koreans about their
nuclear program. Period. The US went to that meeting completely unprepared, and ended up with
nothing.
Then, the trip to Saudi Arabia. A yuuuuge embarrassment. The US threw all human values to the
trash bin, in the name of business. Dirty business. At that moment, I realized Rex Tillerson
was the either extremely stupid or extremely corrupt, or both.
Then, an endeless list of fiascos: NATO, the Paris agreement, Qatar, the surge in Afghanistan,
and so on.
Finally, Tillerson tries to distance himself from Trump!!!! Hey, Rex: you negotiated the deal
with the Saudis. What values are you talking about!!!!
Virginia Reader, 4:57 PM EDT
Tillerson is so bad that he makes Secretary Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud Rice look positively
brilliant. Get rid of him.
But, you should look even more closely at the career civil servants in the Department. They
have been sidelined over the last five years and replaced with senior foreign service officers
with no places to go. That means that much of the institutional memory in highly technical
fields such as arms control, export control, and economics has been forced out of the Truman
Building.
It's not all Tillerson's fault, since it's a long-standing problem, but he is surely
exacerbating it. It's already Time for Him to Go, to quote a Bill Clinton campaign slogan in
1992.
gregdn, 4:49 PM EDT
Every bureaucracy is going to fight to keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying
water for the career guys at State.
jvv62, 5:33 PM EDT
(sarcasm trigger warning)
Nah, we have the biggest military in the world, why do we need people talking to all those
little people in little countries with little problems? All those diplomats ever do is talk,
talk, talk. We need more $100,000,000 planes and billion dollar carriers, not more talkers.
Why bother with a staff and assistant secretaries anyway? they just make all those pesky lists
and reply to calls from pesky people from foreign countries and stuff. America First!
James A. Fuller, 4:47 PM EDT
Replace "State Department" with the name of the company I work for and you get the exact
same experience. I've lost count of how many consultants have been brought in, how many
surveys we've had to complete and how many reorganizations we've been through in the last
three years. Nothing has changed and nothing has gotten better. In fact, the opposite. The
company is circling down the drain and senior leadership is disconnected and out of touch. So
this is what you get when you bring in corporate America to run the government. SSDD.
Sutton Parker, 4:43 PM EDT
As much as he has not done good things for the State Department, at least he is not afraid
to speak his mind about DJT--or at least, so far. We need voices in the Cabinet of people who
are willing to speak up. The time has come. We are in too much danger with DJT in office.
Pogo4, 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]
In addition to his terrible management of State, Tillerson has been humiliated again and
again by Trump -e.g. when Trump invited the Mexican Foreign Minister to DC and didn't even
tell him or invite him to meet with his counterpart. He has no credibility internationally. He
has been used as an errand boy to set up meetings for more important people.
I thought someone with his international experience would understand the value of diplomacy,
but apparently not. Trump's biggest failing has been the unwillingness to focus on details and
not asking for the interagency developed background, recommendations and talking points a real
President would get.
That has led to numerous embarrassing mistakes including his first call to Pakstan, his first
call to Australia, and congratulating Lebanese Prime Minister Harriri on his struggle against
Hezbollah (not realizing that Hezbollah is a member of the coalition government in Lebanon).
Bannon wanted to destroy the US Government. What is Tillerson's excuse? He should resign.
aikawarazu, 5:40 PM EDT
Of course, Hillary Clinton would be better.
Hillary manipulated Putin into reversing his Security Council veto on multi-national sanctions
on Iran's nuclear weapons program. As a result, Iran dumpstered their uranium centrifuges. Get
back to us when Tillerson does anything comparable to that.
eduvina41, 4:21 PM EDT
He has tempered some of Trumps more outrageous comments.....
threesides, 4:00 PM EDT
Daniel, you have provided us your perspective as an unabashed progressive liberal, so no
surprise you would be against anything trump-related (including Tillerson). You need to take
deep breaths and mitigate your Trump Derangement Syndrome
BPerked, 3:50 PM EDT
I actually think the point IS to break the foreign service. His inaction is a
passive-aggressive way of drastically reducing the size and cost of the agency he heads. He,
like many other Trump appointees are doing a brilliant job in this respect.
And who can be surprised at his hiring outside consultants for everything? I've been in many
large corporations (including as a consultant) and I've met very few CEOs who weren't trailing
a few thirty-year-old Bain or McKinsey people around, fresh from their MBAs. That's what too
many CEOs do. Come in, spend millions on consulting to basically come up with a new powerpoint
org chart, layoff a few thousand, and then depart the company with millions in stock and cash.
He's just following the mega-corp. playbook.
BarleyMalt, 3:50 PM EDT
Trump and diplomacy mix like oil and water. Take Trump out of the equation and then maybe
someone could run the State Department.
kt, 3:37 PM EDT
You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of
those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with
politicians long before Trump.
This Tillerson omelette may require a messy number of
broken eggs, but it will leave the country with a truer diplomatic corps.
Susan Wood, 3:20 PM EDT
"Let's run X like a business!" Yeah, right. In higher education we've seen how that
approach has gutted some of the finest research universities in the Midwest. For people who
worship the infallibility of the free market and the great wisdom of businessmen, I have one
word for you: Enron.
rdgolden, 3:36 PM EDT
Here's a two-word: two-word: Great Recession
padnactap92, 2:58 PM EDT
"Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of
pretty much everything else."
1. Reorganizing the deck chairs on the Dump-tanic.
2. "Dismantling the 'administrative state.'"
pragmatic dothraki, 2:15 PM EDT
i actually find myself disagreeing with the conclusion of this article. the writer is
forgetting one important proviso - this is the Trump administration and Tillerson is better
than most we can expect.
A replacement would just continue the litany of disappointment for the time taken to settle
into office, it may get worse afterwards. that is important to remember and something that'll
no doubt be on my tombstone - things can always get worse.
And i'm not a fan of companies whose income dwarfs that of many nations, especially
Exxon-Mobil.
But Tillerson is a facts and figures kind of guy used to working with experts. Unlike many
potential replacements who disavow anything factual they're not comfortable with (yes, Exxon
changed their tune on warming).
Russpublicans are traitors, 2:19 PM EDT
Oil companies are not typically businesses. Tillerson is not a facts and figures guy. He is
comfortable around dictators from 3rd world countries.
pragmatic dothraki, 2:21 PM EDT
he is a facts and figures guy as he deals with scientists and engineers at every level in
an oil company. and yeah you're not wrong with the cozying.
timetogetreal
, 2:06 PM EDT
Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a
joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel.
jagrmeister721
, 2:04 PM EDT
Not well written or persuasive. Of course career bureaucrats would object to hiring
external consultants. And not spending money is only a sin to DC insiders. He's unremarkable,
but he's done nothing to warrant termination.
Russpublicans are traitors, 2:01 PM EDT
I am not sure how many times I need to say this...
The "election" was a coup d'etat orchestrated by Putin and the Kremlin. They have an installed
a band of mentally ill criminals in government whose marching orders are to weaken the US and
diminish its influence in the world. They have found a willing vehicle in the trump and the
republican party. Tillerson is just one more piece of the machine...same as Bannon, Sessions,
Pence, Flynn, Miller, Gorka, Conway, Sanders, Pruitt, Haley, De Vos, etc...
He will not resign. He is doing what the Russians want him to do. He has a medal pinned on him
from Putin himself. And after the meddling in the election he has NOT RETURNED his medal.
JeffZaun
, 2:03 PM EDT
If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's
remorse.
GrumpyOldPhart
, 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]
Sigh... @Russpublicans are traitors you're living proof that even liberals are prone to
conspiracy theories worthy of publication by InfoWARS and Breitbart.
The Russians did a lot of propagandizing--that's absolutely clear. That propaganda probably
helped swing some votes Trump's way. And the Russians also clearly put out feelers to see how
much they could manipulate and/or compromise the Trump gov't. But "coup d'etat"? Seriously?
Bud, you should invest in a better brand of tinfoil.
Six things have contributed to making the US the mess that it is today and ALL of those things
are 100% home-grown American. No Russia involved.
1) Greed. Corporate greed. And individual greed, especially among the so-called 1%.
2) Lack of education. This is particularly acute among the grade school through high school
years. This leads to obsessive levels of asinine bible banging and science denying, as well as
an inability to grasp the concepts of fact and reality.
3) Bigotry. Every country has its bigots, racists, and nativists. America arguably has more
than most other leading nations of the world. And it's more actively on display. This shows up
in the paranoia about gun ownership, the numbers of guns, the fight over America's racist
past, and the abject fear that seems to dominate so many American's psyches and lives.
4) Antiquated electoral system. The Electoral College has long outlived its purpose. It now
contributes significantly to giving unjustified power to the lowest population areas of the
country.
5) Gerrymandering. Done by both parties, although arguably Republicans have taken this from an
art form and turned it into science.
6) Republican voter suppression. One needs look only at Texas and North Carolina to see what
this means in action. Florida would appear to be a close third.
Thomas29, 2:25 PM EDT
This is not the only instance of an administration who seems to be appointing people to
fight or weaken their own agencies. To some extent, this follows the anti-government
appointments in the Bush years where people with little belief or interest in agencies and
their missions were routinely sent there to reign them in. However, the Bush people understood
the role of the State Department and the need for it to function in the national interest.
This administration appears to be following a Putin foreign policy designed to weaken
America's reach in the world in the interest of strengthening Russian power and influence.
Once again, the big question is where is Congressional oversight? Besides a few outspoken
Senators, there are many patriots who for reasons of support of the President or fear of the
base have chosen to allow this "American Carnage" to continue. They should be ashamed!
Empiricist, 1:56 PM EDT
A major problem is that the rest of the Republican party just lies around letting Tillerson
and Trump do this to our country. I have voted for various Republicans in the past, but I'll
never vote for another as long as I live. What they are doing to our country makes me sick.
blurbologist, 2:00 PM EDT
Hear, hear. I will never trust Republicans to do anything constructive for our country,
ever again. They have become a wholly destructive force in American politics. It's not that
the R's are putting "Party over country" they put maintaining their power over every other
consideration. Shameful.
JaneMP, 2:05 PM EDT
They have only one policy: cut taxes for the rich and corporations. IF cutting taxes on the
rich and corporation increased jobs, after W's tax cuts we should have been overwhelmed by
jobs. Never happened. Never will. Give money to the middle class. They will spend it. Jobs
will grow to make and sell these products.
blurbologist, 2:07 PM EDT
Actually, they have one more - deregulate everything and put foxes in charge of every
henhouse.
Empiricist, 2:01 PM EDT
So true. You can't count on the Republican Senate or Congress to behave competently or in
the best interests of the US, either.
mercurysnake77, 1:56 PM EDT
Let's not forget the ultimate aim, which is "the deconstruction of the administrative
state."
8675309 and me, 1:50 PM EDT
The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really
surprised?
ChrisCantwellsDeliciousTears, 1:53 PM EDT
Who knew everything was so complicated?
JeffZaun, 1:59 PM EDT
Have to agree. I think the Trump administration is mostly bad. But in this case Secretary
Tillerson is executing one of the President's campaign promises. He seems to be cutting a lot
of sinew along with fat, but it's easy to grow that back.
It's like when a private equity company takes over a failed firm.
Citing Max Boot instantly destroys any credibility of this "professor" and makes him more of
hired gyun, then a political commentator. With experts like max boot the only question is why
Wolfowitz in not the Secretary of state.
Neocons in State Department, like any powerful bureaucracy is going to fight tooth and nail to
keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying water for the neocons at State.
As for State Department, all diplomats who signed infamous "color revolution" style letter in
support of Hillary jingoism and neocon policies need to be eliminated from State Department if we
wnat the USA survive and prosper. So Tillerson action are not enough. Much deeper shake up is
needed by political forces for that are absent.
When reading comments you instantly understands why Washington is still an imperial capital...
And why neocon will lead the USA off the cliff is given a chance. The level of coments has
such an amazingly strong neocon tilt, that you can question sanity of some commenters. It also
shows the level of McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. For example "raylo 3:08 PM EDT [Edited] It's
like the Russians have moles in our government and are working to destroy it from the inside. Oh,
wait"
As of preserving the hegemon position of the USA is a realistic perspective and will not destroy
the USA or all the world, as this is forging alliance of the Russia and China among other
trends. BTW I did not find a single instance of the words of "neocon", "Neoconservatism",
and "neoliberalism" neither in the article, nor in the comments.
Notable quotes:
"... You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with politicians long before Trump. ..."
"... Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel. ..."
"... If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's remorse. ..."
"... The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really surprised? ..."
Critics such as Max
Boot are calling for him to resign. Axios is reporting that even President Trump is
apparently disenchanted with Tillerson.
... ... ...
If Trump no longer trusts Tillerson, then he has no other political goodwill to draw upon. He
has made zero deposits in Washington's favor bank.
Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of pretty
much everything else. This has led to some truly bizarre outcomes. His reliance on outside
consultants has led to much derision within the diplomatic corps
Tillerson is such
a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The State Department
has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and Russian
propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is unwelcome
because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow,
according to a former senior State Department official." (UPDATE: A
State Department official wrote me after this post was published to say that last week, Tillerson
approved the release of $19.8 million from that fund. Politico reported
the same thing this afternoon, also after this was published.) Furthermore, State has spurned
all of the
Council on Foreign Relations' International Affairs Fellows. This is a program that makes
talented scholars freely available to U.S. foreign affairs agencies for a year. Council president
Richard Haass confirmed to me that State has not accepted any of this year's fellows, despite the
fact that they come with zero cost.
dennis827, 7:30 PM EDT
So a professor of something or other says the previous CEO
of Exxon is a bad manager? Yeah, makes sense.
dennis827, 8:22 PM EDT [Edited]
Tillerson is such a bad manager that he has spurned both free money and free talent. The
State Department has not spent $80 million authorized by Congress to fight misinformation and
Russian propaganda. According to Politico, "Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond suggested the money is
unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would
anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official."
See, I don't think a professor understands a good manager doesn't understand "free" money
isn't really a thing. And I suppose I'm using "A" professor kinda like Game of Thrones speak.
zappa912, 7:18 PM EDT
Ouch!!! I must say this though, even with my non-expert knowledge of the intracies of the
operation of the State Department. If in reality, Tillerson is helping to keep Tweeter from
pulling the military trigger against North Korea or other international adversaries, then I
hope he at least stays around until Tweeter is gone from the Trump Dump House. Tillerson does
appear to me to at least be working to keep us out of military conflicts, which considering
the impulsiveness, intentional ignorance and frequent war like tone of the Tweeter, is a good
thing in my opinion.
Isaac 65, 6:00 PM EDT
If a Trump sycophant had replaced Tillerson we'd probably be at war with DPRK. Seriously,
list the sane people in the administration: Jim Mattis, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and Rex
Tillerson - did I miss any?
akpat, 5:48 PM EDT
Critics such as Max Boot are calling for him to resign
)))
Who is max boot and who cares what they think
akpat, 5:43 PM EDT
Well Drezner I dont think it was Tillertson who brought us Egypt, Libya and Syria nor was
it him who brought Iraq, NK and Iran.
It was the other so called experts you like.
mmcind, 5:57 PM EDT
Actually, most of the significant increase in those problems can be traced to dick cheney,
war criminal.
berrymonster11, 5:09 PM EDT
An honorable man, whose sense of duty, respect and patriotism was developed in an entire of
life of service in the Boys Scouts. A successful businessman, who has led one the largest
companies in the world, and who knows how to deal with all kinds of people. I thought Mr
Tillerson would become a great Secretary of State.
What a disappointment!! Countless mistakes, from the very beginning.
On April 2017, the entire US-China relationship was defined at... Mar-a-Lago!!! The key
points: the US would not start a trade war with China; in exchange, China would ease whatever
problems Ivanka's business had over there... and try to talk to the North Koreans about their
nuclear program. Period. The US went to that meeting completely unprepared, and ended up with
nothing.
Then, the trip to Saudi Arabia. A yuuuuge embarrassment. The US threw all human values to the
trash bin, in the name of business. Dirty business. At that moment, I realized Rex Tillerson
was the either extremely stupid or extremely corrupt, or both.
Then, an endeless list of fiascos: NATO, the Paris agreement, Qatar, the surge in Afghanistan,
and so on.
Finally, Tillerson tries to distance himself from Trump!!!! Hey, Rex: you negotiated the deal
with the Saudis. What values are you talking about!!!!
Virginia Reader, 4:57 PM EDT
Tillerson is so bad that he makes Secretary Smoking Gun/Mushroom Cloud Rice look positively
brilliant. Get rid of him.
But, you should look even more closely at the career civil servants in the Department. They
have been sidelined over the last five years and replaced with senior foreign service officers
with no places to go. That means that much of the institutional memory in highly technical
fields such as arms control, export control, and economics has been forced out of the Truman
Building.
It's not all Tillerson's fault, since it's a long-standing problem, but he is surely
exacerbating it. It's already Time for Him to Go, to quote a Bill Clinton campaign slogan in
1992.
gregdn, 4:49 PM EDT
Every bureaucracy is going to fight to keep its size and turf. Drezner's just carrying
water for the career guys at State.
jvv62, 5:33 PM EDT
(sarcasm trigger warning)
Nah, we have the biggest military in the world, why do we need people talking to all those
little people in little countries with little problems? All those diplomats ever do is talk,
talk, talk. We need more $100,000,000 planes and billion dollar carriers, not more talkers.
Why bother with a staff and assistant secretaries anyway? they just make all those pesky lists
and reply to calls from pesky people from foreign countries and stuff. America First!
James A. Fuller, 4:47 PM EDT
Replace "State Department" with the name of the company I work for and you get the exact
same experience. I've lost count of how many consultants have been brought in, how many
surveys we've had to complete and how many reorganizations we've been through in the last
three years. Nothing has changed and nothing has gotten better. In fact, the opposite. The
company is circling down the drain and senior leadership is disconnected and out of touch. So
this is what you get when you bring in corporate America to run the government. SSDD.
Sutton Parker, 4:43 PM EDT
As much as he has not done good things for the State Department, at least he is not afraid
to speak his mind about DJT--or at least, so far. We need voices in the Cabinet of people who
are willing to speak up. The time has come. We are in too much danger with DJT in office.
Pogo4, 4:28 PM EDT [Edited]
In addition to his terrible management of State, Tillerson has been humiliated again and
again by Trump -e.g. when Trump invited the Mexican Foreign Minister to DC and didn't even
tell him or invite him to meet with his counterpart. He has no credibility internationally. He
has been used as an errand boy to set up meetings for more important people.
I thought someone with his international experience would understand the value of diplomacy,
but apparently not. Trump's biggest failing has been the unwillingness to focus on details and
not asking for the interagency developed background, recommendations and talking points a real
President would get.
That has led to numerous embarrassing mistakes including his first call to Pakstan, his first
call to Australia, and congratulating Lebanese Prime Minister Harriri on his struggle against
Hezbollah (not realizing that Hezbollah is a member of the coalition government in Lebanon).
Bannon wanted to destroy the US Government. What is Tillerson's excuse? He should resign.
aikawarazu, 5:40 PM EDT
Of course, Hillary Clinton would be better.
Hillary manipulated Putin into reversing his Security Council veto on multi-national sanctions
on Iran's nuclear weapons program. As a result, Iran dumpstered their uranium centrifuges. Get
back to us when Tillerson does anything comparable to that.
eduvina41, 4:21 PM EDT
He has tempered some of Trumps more outrageous comments.....
threesides, 4:00 PM EDT
Daniel, you have provided us your perspective as an unabashed progressive liberal, so no
surprise you would be against anything trump-related (including Tillerson). You need to take
deep breaths and mitigate your Trump Derangement Syndrome
BPerked, 3:50 PM EDT
I actually think the point IS to break the foreign service. His inaction is a
passive-aggressive way of drastically reducing the size and cost of the agency he heads. He,
like many other Trump appointees are doing a brilliant job in this respect.
And who can be surprised at his hiring outside consultants for everything? I've been in many
large corporations (including as a consultant) and I've met very few CEOs who weren't trailing
a few thirty-year-old Bain or McKinsey people around, fresh from their MBAs. That's what too
many CEOs do. Come in, spend millions on consulting to basically come up with a new powerpoint
org chart, layoff a few thousand, and then depart the company with millions in stock and cash.
He's just following the mega-corp. playbook.
BarleyMalt, 3:50 PM EDT
Trump and diplomacy mix like oil and water. Take Trump out of the equation and then maybe
someone could run the State Department.
kt, 3:37 PM EDT
You wonks live with no consequences, watching the battle from a safe distance. Most of
those high ranking diplomats who left or were forced out had aligned themselves with
politicians long before Trump. This Tillerson omelette may require a messy number of
broken eggs, but it will leave the country with a truer diplomatic corps.
Susan Wood, 3:20 PM EDT
"Let's run X like a business!" Yeah, right. In higher education we've seen how that
approach has gutted some of the finest research universities in the Midwest. For people who
worship the infallibility of the free market and the great wisdom of businessmen, I have one
word for you: Enron.
rdgolden, 3:36 PM EDT
Here's a two-word: two-word: Great Recession
padnactap92, 2:58 PM EDT
"Second, Tillerson has prioritized the reorganization of Foggy Bottom to the exclusion of
pretty much everything else."
1. Reorganizing the deck chairs on the Dump-tanic.
2. "Dismantling the 'administrative state.'"
pragmatic dothraki, 2:15 PM EDT
i actually find myself disagreeing with the conclusion of this article. the writer is
forgetting one important proviso - this is the Trump administration and Tillerson is better
than most we can expect.
A replacement would just continue the litany of disappointment for the time taken to settle
into office, it may get worse afterwards. that is important to remember and something that'll
no doubt be on my tombstone - things can always get worse.
And i'm not a fan of companies whose income dwarfs that of many nations, especially
Exxon-Mobil.
But Tillerson is a facts and figures kind of guy used to working with experts. Unlike many
potential replacements who disavow anything factual they're not comfortable with (yes, Exxon
changed their tune on warming).
Russpublicans are traitors, 2:19 PM EDT
Oil companies are not typically businesses. Tillerson is not a facts and figures guy. He is
comfortable around dictators from 3rd world countries.
pragmatic dothraki, 2:21 PM EDT
he is a facts and figures guy as he deals with scientists and engineers at every level in
an oil company. and yeah you're not wrong with the cozying.
timetogetreal, 2:06 PM EDT
Yup, the state department was a model agency before Tillerson arrived....what a
joke....do these WAPO people even read their own drivel.
jagrmeister721, 2:04 PM EDT
Not well written or persuasive. Of course career bureaucrats would object to hiring
external consultants. And not spending money is only a sin to DC insiders. He's unremarkable,
but he's done nothing to warrant termination.
Russpublicans are traitors, 2:01 PM EDT
I am not sure how many times I need to say this...
The "election" was a coup d'etat orchestrated by Putin and the Kremlin. They have an installed
a band of mentally ill criminals in government whose marching orders are to weaken the US and
diminish its influence in the world. They have found a willing vehicle in the trump and the
republican party. Tillerson is just one more piece of the machine...same as Bannon, Sessions,
Pence, Flynn, Miller, Gorka, Conway, Sanders, Pruitt, Haley, De Vos, etc...
He will not resign. He is doing what the Russians want him to do. He has a medal pinned on him
from Putin himself. And after the meddling in the election he has NOT RETURNED his medal.
JeffZaun, 2:03 PM EDT
If so, judging by today's headlines, I'm thinking President Putin's got buyer's
remorse.
GrumpyOldPhart, 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]
Sigh... @Russpublicans are traitors you're living proof that even liberals are prone to
conspiracy theories worthy of publication by InfoWARS and Breitbart.
The Russians did a lot of propagandizing--that's absolutely clear. That propaganda probably
helped swing some votes Trump's way. And the Russians also clearly put out feelers to see how
much they could manipulate and/or compromise the Trump gov't. But "coup d'etat"? Seriously?
Bud, you should invest in a better brand of tinfoil.
Six things have contributed to making the US the mess that it is today and ALL of those things
are 100% home-grown American. No Russia involved.
1) Greed. Corporate greed. And individual greed, especially among the so-called 1%.
2) Lack of education. This is particularly acute among the grade school through high school
years. This leads to obsessive levels of asinine bible banging and science denying, as well as
an inability to grasp the concepts of fact and reality.
3) Bigotry. Every country has its bigots, racists, and nativists. America arguably has more
than most other leading nations of the world. And it's more actively on display. This shows up
in the paranoia about gun ownership, the numbers of guns, the fight over America's racist
past, and the abject fear that seems to dominate so many American's psyches and lives.
4) Antiquated electoral system. The Electoral College has long outlived its purpose. It now
contributes significantly to giving unjustified power to the lowest population areas of the
country.
5) Gerrymandering. Done by both parties, although arguably Republicans have taken this from an
art form and turned it into science.
6) Republican voter suppression. One needs look only at Texas and North Carolina to see what
this means in action. Florida would appear to be a close third.
Thomas29, 2:25 PM EDT
This is not the only instance of an administration who seems to be appointing people to
fight or weaken their own agencies. To some extent, this follows the anti-government
appointments in the Bush years where people with little belief or interest in agencies and
their missions were routinely sent there to reign them in. However, the Bush people understood
the role of the State Department and the need for it to function in the national interest.
This administration appears to be following a Putin foreign policy designed to weaken
America's reach in the world in the interest of strengthening Russian power and influence.
Once again, the big question is where is Congressional oversight? Besides a few outspoken
Senators, there are many patriots who for reasons of support of the President or fear of the
base have chosen to allow this "American Carnage" to continue. They should be ashamed!
Empiricist, 1:56 PM EDT
A major problem is that the rest of the Republican party just lies around letting Tillerson
and Trump do this to our country. I have voted for various Republicans in the past, but I'll
never vote for another as long as I live. What they are doing to our country makes me sick.
blurbologist, 2:00 PM EDT
Hear, hear. I will never trust Republicans to do anything constructive for our country,
ever again. They have become a wholly destructive force in American politics. It's not that
the R's are putting "Party over country" they put maintaining their power over every other
consideration. Shameful.
JaneMP, 2:05 PM EDT
They have only one policy: cut taxes for the rich and corporations. IF cutting taxes on the
rich and corporation increased jobs, after W's tax cuts we should have been overwhelmed by
jobs. Never happened. Never will. Give money to the middle class. They will spend it. Jobs
will grow to make and sell these products.
blurbologist, 2:07 PM EDT
Actually, they have one more - deregulate everything and put foxes in charge of every
henhouse.
Empiricist, 2:01 PM EDT
So true. You can't count on the Republican Senate or Congress to behave competently or in
the best interests of the US, either.
mercurysnake77, 1:56 PM EDT
Let's not forget the ultimate aim, which is "the deconstruction of the administrative
state."
8675309 and me, 1:50 PM EDT
The opposition to change is a hallmark of the Washington bureaucracy. Is anyone really
surprised?
ChrisCantwellsDeliciousTears, 1:53 PM EDT
Who knew everything was so complicated?
JeffZaun, 1:59 PM EDT
Have to agree. I think the Trump administration is mostly bad. But in this case Secretary
Tillerson is executing one of the President's campaign promises. He seems to be cutting a lot
of sinew along with fat, but it's easy to grow that back.
It's like when a private equity company takes over a failed firm.
Tillerson has long been a target of the American-Jewish media because of the perception that
oil company executives are traditionally not friendly to Israel. There have also been claims
that he is "less hard" on Iran than the Israel Lobby would like. But what Tillerson is really
experiencing is the hard truth regarding Israel: that its Lobby and friends in congress are
both unrelenting and unforgiving. Even when they get 90% of the pie they are furious over
someone else getting 10%.
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has also been under siege for the
past several weeks and his "loyalty" to Israel is now under the microscope. McMaster made the
mistake of firing
three National Security Council officials
that were brought in by his predecessor Michael
Flynn. The three – Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Rich Higgins, and Derek Harvey – are all
regarded by the Israel Lobby as passionately pro-Israel and virulently anti-Iran. It was
therefore inevitable that McMaster would take some heat, but the "speed and intensity" of the
attacks has
surprised
even
The Atlantic
, which failed to note in its thorough examination of the
development that while much of the anger flows from extreme right-wing sources there is also
considerable pressure coming directly from friends of Israel.
It is interesting to note just how and by whom the argument against McMaster is being
framed. Caroline Glick, an American-born Israeli journalist who might reasonably be described
as extreme right wing, has led the charge
in a posting
that described McMaster as "deeply hostile to Israel." She cites anonymous
sources to claim that he refers to Israel as an occupying power and also has the audacity to
claim that there once existed a place called Palestine. Oh, and he apparently also supports the
nuclear agreement with Iran, as does Tillerson.
McMaster's other crimes consist of allegedly altering the agenda of Donald Trump's recent
trip to Israel in ways that are somewhat arcane but which no doubt contributed to Glick's sense
of grievance. What is most interesting, however, is the unstated premise supporting Glick's
point of view, which is that the United States national security team should be subject to
approval by Israel. Her view is not dissimilar to what lies behind the attacks on Tillerson and
the real irony is that neither Tillerson nor McMaster has actually demonstrated any genuine
animosity towards Israel, so the whole process is part of a perverse mindset that inevitably
sees nearly everything as a threat.
We Americans are way beyond the point where we might simply demand that Israel and its
partisans butt out of our politics. Israel-firsters are literally deeply embedded everywhere in
the media, in politics at all levels, in academia, and in the professions. They are well funded
and highly disciplined to respond to any threats to their hegemony. Their policy is to never
give an inch on anything relating to Israel and their relentless grinding is characteristic of
how they behave. The Israel Lobby controls Congress and can literally get any bill it wants
through the legislature. And it also has its hooks in the White House, though the unpredictable
Trump obviously makes many American Zionists nervous because it is rightly believed that once
the president takes a position on anything he cannot be trusted either to understand what he
has committed to or to stick with it subsequently.
So what is to be done? To match the passion of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to become
passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in reverse. Write letters to congressmen and
newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a congress critter has a town hall, show up and
complain about our involvement in the Middle East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e.
how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and
soldiers overseas in danger. The reality is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by
people who frequently cite the holocaust every time they turn around but who have no actual
regard for humanity outside their own tribe. The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to
survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel and engaging in constant wars to directly or
indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in Syria, will wear our country down and erode
our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope and it is past time to put our own interests
first.So what is to be done? To match the passion of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to
become passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in reverse. Write letters to congressmen and
newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a congress critter has a town hall, show up and
complain about our involvement in the Middle East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e.
how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and
soldiers overseas in danger. The reality is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by
people who frequently cite the holocaust every time they turn around but who have no actual
regard for humanity outside their own tribe.
The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel
and engaging in constant wars to directly or indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in
Syria, will wear our country down and erode our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope
and it is past time to put our own interests first.So what is to be done? To match the passion
of the Israel Lobby we Americans have to become passionate ourselves. Do what they do but in
reverse. Write letters to congressmen and newspapers opposing the junkets to Israel. When a
congress critter has a town hall, show up and complain about our involvement in the Middle
East. Keep mentioning the pocket book issues, i.e. how Israel costs the taxpayer $9 million a
day. Explain how its behavior puts our diplomats and soldiers overseas in danger. The reality
is that Israel is built on a lot of lies promoted by people who frequently cite the holocaust
every time they turn around but who have no actual regard for humanity outside their own tribe.
The hypocrisy must stop if the United States is to survive as a nation. Pandering to Israel and
engaging in constant wars to directly or indirectly defend it, be they against Iran or in
Syria, will wear our country down and erode our freedoms. We are already on a slippery slope
and it is past time to put our own interests first.
Mike Flynn has been out at the White House for more than four months. He
is, we are told, in the most serious kind of legal trouble. Yet the political
ghost of Mike Flynn still seems to be a hidden hand driving outcomes in
the Trump White House. Maybe it's even Flynn himself.
Allow me to explain.
On Friday, Foreign Policy
published an article explaining that the White House is pushing for
widening the war in Syria over Pentagon objections. Look into the details
and you see it's more specific than 'widening the war'. It's moving from
a near exclusive focus on defeating ISIS to pushing a broader confrontation
with Iran, which is of course heavily involved in Syria.
Not only does this run the risk of a major and damaging military confrontation
with Iran. It almost certainly complicates or hurts the campaign against
ISIS since Iran is itself extremely hostile to ISIS and fighting it on the
ground in Iraq and Syria.
So who exactly is "the White House" here?
According to the Foreign Policy piece, it's principally two
people. Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey, respectively the chief intelligence
adviser at the NSC and the chief Middle East advisor. If that first name
rings a bell, it should: Cohen-Watnick is the Flynn protege who was behind
the Devin Nunes, Susan Rice "un-masking" nonsense caper. While Cohen-Watnick
was up to that mischief, McMaster,
as one of his first orders of business was trying to can him .
But he was blocked by Trump and Bannon.
Dereck Harvey is clearly a hawk but he at least seems to be respected
within the military and intelligence establishments beyond just Mike Flynn.
David Patraeus had him as an advisor and he appears to have held Harvey
in high esteem.
There's an additional element to the story that bears directly on the
Russia probe.
Remember that the most plausible read of what Cohen-Watnick was doing
in that case was trying to surveil the investigation into his boss and mentor,
Flynn, and the larger Russia probe. White House Counsel Don McGahn appears
to have realized that as soon as Cohen-Watnick brought the "findings" of
his "review" to the Counsel's office. McGahn told Cohen-Watnick to stand
down. That prompted Cohen-Watnick to pull an end run by going to Nunes.
As even Lake concedes, Rice's alleged actions – if the report is
accurate – were almost certainly legal. Most national security experts
say they were not only legal but entirely proper. Moreover, the kind
of snooping around that Cohen-Watnick was apparently doing could very
plausibly be interpreted as an attempt to monitor or interfere with
the on-going counter-intelligence probe of Trump associates' ties to
Russia. The White House Counsel's job is to protect and look after the
legal interests of the President. A good lawyer would likely want to
shut that kind of freelancing down right away, especially if what Cohen-Watnick
had found didn't amount to anything that helped the President or the
White House.
My basic question is: why does Cohen-Watnick still have a job? Maybe
McMaster couldn't fire him on day one. But he's had months to establish
himself and place his stamp on the NSC.
Who is opposing this at the Pentagon? According to Foreign Policy
, it's principally Secretary of Defense Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chair Dunford.
Foreign Policy is less clear on where McMaster stands but assumes (I think
rightly based on other published reports) he is in the latter (Pentagon)
group. (Remember, that Mattis is considered a major Iran hawk; the fact
that he opposes this speaks volumes.)
Now, conflicts between Departments (State, Defense, CIA, et al.) and
the NSC are common in American foreign policy. The NSC often wins them.
That is not odd in itself. What is odd is that in this case the "NSC" is
not clearly being driven by the President's National Security Advisor. That's
highly odd.
Indeed, if we look at the current NSC it seems to still be stocked in
many cases by Mike Flynn's people. Again, not entirely out of the norm.
A new boss isn't really in a position to fire everyone at once. But Mike
Flynn isn't any former NSC boss. He resigned in disgrace and is at the center
of an investigation that is consuming the whole country. Copious reporting
says that he has not been permitted to fire a number of Flynn people.
Who exactly is keeping Cohen-Watnick and others like him in place? Remember,
this isn't my imagination or speculation. McMaster tried to fire him as
soon as he took over the NSC. More than not being fired, what juice does
he have that is allowing him to carry on major inter-agency battles to which
the NSC chief, his nominal boss, is either a bystander or an opponent? You
don't stay in a position like that against that kind of opposition – and
certainly not with that much power – unless someone very powerful is on
your side.
There is some unseen power center at work here. Is it the President?
Is it Steve Bannon? Is it Flynn? From what I can tell it's not clear. But
it seems pretty important to find out.
The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is expressing growing frustration with the Trump
administration and may be considering resigning from his role,
the Hill
reports citing to CNN reports.
Though the former CEO of ExxonMobil Corp. has said that he would stay on as the top U.S.
diplomat until the end of the year at least, several anonymous sources
told CNN
over the weekend that he might leave earlier than that.
Sources "familiar with Tillerson conversations with friends outside Washington" admit the
secretary of State may just be venting, but they sense his doubts about President Trump are
growing.
"... Samantha ' Genocide ' Powers, former US Ambassador to the UN and Spoxhole started out as a journalist too. They just can't seem to get professional diplomats to take the job, or maybe they are simply not offered it. We've been around this particular bush many times before. ..."
"... Are western institutions hollowing themselves out by promoting semi-talented gobshites instead of career diplomats and experts and does that stop people going in to the diplomatic service thus leave less and less available for top jobs as the real experts have either already retired or will soon? ..."
Samantha ' Genocide ' Powers, former US Ambassador to the UN and Spoxhole started out
as a journalist too. They just can't seem to get professional diplomats to take the job, or maybe
they are simply not offered it. We've been around this particular bush many times before.
Are western institutions hollowing themselves out by promoting semi-talented gobshites instead
of career diplomats and experts and does that stop people going in to the diplomatic service thus
leave less and less available for top jobs as the real experts have either already retired or will
soon?
The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on UK-Russia relations that I posted about
above highlights this lack of expertise, but is it also the case that mass surveillance though technology
has become the magpie politicians shiny jewels to the detriment of promoting human resource capital?
Meanwhile, the head of British Intelligence outfit MI6 gave an interview to the British press
about being 'inclusive' and now trying to personally recruit new members from all backgrounds with
the traditional 'tap on the shoulder'. Yup, when you lock down the internet – for your own safety
of course – you keep full records of every citizens electronic movements, and you allow over 30 government
departments almost full access to that information at the tap of a couple of buttons with minimum
oversight, what's left? Ah yes, spies in every community to report back so no minority is left behind,
including the LBQ-GTI brigade (who have always been in British Intelligence, but officialdom previously
looked the other way). But don't call it a Police State, 'coz that is bad . Managed British
democracy and freedoms are good .
Here are a few of the headlines:
The Independent: MI6 is bringing back the 'tap on the shoulder' recruitment method
The Times: MI6 brings back tap on the shoulder to boost diversity
BBC: New MI6: Less white, less like Bond
And two pieces by 'The Friends of Snowden', the Guardian!
The Guardian: MI6 returns to 'tapping up' in effort to recruit black and Asian officers
The Guardian: What you really need to join MI6: emotional intelligence and a high IQ
What this smacks of is damage repair and promotion PR exercise. I bet this boilerplate interview
was slated for earlier release but when it was discovered that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele
prepared the Trump 'Dodgy Dossier', not to mention his past in the famous Moscow 'Spy Rock' episode,
so they waited a little while to let the news how MI6 treats its former/agents to cool off.
Do MI6 really tap people on the shoulder if they want to recruit them? I'd have thought their
methods involved press-ganging people and threatening blackmail by posting fake videos of their
victims engaged in terrorist or paedophilic acts if they refused to cooperate. http://www.nelsonsnavy.co.uk/broadside7.html
Was that how James Bond was recruited to work for Her Maj Betty Windsor's Secret Service: being
invited to a cup of tea, a Vesper Martini and a chat with Misses Moneypenny and Goodnight somewhere
in Mayfair in London?
"... Despite these hotspots, the Trump administration and Secretary Rex Tillerson have allowed the hotline with Tehran to go cold. Despite the significant risk of war, not a single phone call has taken place between Tillerson and Zarif. Not a single attempt at resolving the tensions diplomatically has been made. ..."
"... When asked about diplomacy with Iran during his visit to the Saudi kingdom, Tillerson said that he had no plans to reach out to Iran , although he didn't rule it out in the future. ..."
"... The George W. Bush administration at least had the decency to lie to the American public when it sold the electorate the Iraq War. And however skewed and faulty, the Iraq War was preceded by a debate and a vote in Congress. Though President Bush eschewed diplomacy, he nevertheless presented a deeply flawed case as to why diplomacy no longer was an option. Trump and Tillerson simply don't even bother. ..."
"... The Trump administration's recklessness is endangering America and putting American servicemen and women at risk. If Tillerson was supposed to be the adult in the room steering Trump in the right direction, he needs to start to act the part. ..."
"... Before the escalation with Iran reaches a point of no return, diplomacy must be given a chance. That responsibility falls on Mr. Tillerson. The former Exxonmobil CEO has Zarif's number. It's time he places a call. ..."
For
instance, at one point U.S. Navy ships and helicopters were approaching the Iranian island
where the sailors were kept. "Please tell your navy not to get close," Zarif told Kerry, his
tone revealing the urgency of the matter. "We don't want a military confrontation. But if your
planes get close, we will have serious trouble." Kerry immediately hung up and called General
Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to urge him to pull back. "We're
risking potential escalation here," Kerry told the general. "They were giving us positive
indications that they are gonna release these guys, so we should back off the helicopters for
now and test if this is real." Dunford complied, and a dangerous confrontation was avoided. To
prove that the sailors were safe, Zarif emailed a picture of them from his Gmail account to
Kerry's State Department email.
It had taken two years of intense discussions and negotiations for Kerry and Zarif to build
the rapport that enabled them to so quickly resolve unforeseen crises such as that of the U.S.
sailors. But once the channel of communications and the rapport had been established, its
utility and efficiency was unquestionable. Indeed, the sailors' incident could have ended up as
another prolonged hostage crisis. Instead, most Americans have not even heard of their
mishap.
Today, there are many unforeseen crises that risk bringing the U.S. and Iran!indeed, the
entire Middle East!into direct confrontation. The U.S. and Iran have a shared interest in
defeating ISIS in Iraq, but after the fall of Mosul, the balance of their interest may lead
them in a more confrontational direction. A similar dynamic is playing out in Syria, where the
U.S. already has shot down Iranian drones and bombed Iranian-sponsored groups. Moreover,
tensions in the Persian Gulf are rising as Saudi Arabia appears to have received a green light
from the Trump administration to double down on confrontation and bullying.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had no illusions about the end goal of the Saudis.
The Saudis always want to "
fight
the Iranians to the last American
," he told his French counterpart in 2010. Since then,
the Saudi appetite for a U.S.-Iran war has only grown.
Despite these hotspots, the Trump administration and Secretary Rex Tillerson have
allowed the hotline with Tehran to go cold. Despite the significant risk of war, not a single
phone call has taken place between Tillerson and Zarif. Not a single attempt at resolving the
tensions diplomatically has been made.
That is simply not good enough. It is the foremost responsibility of the President and his
administration to keep America safe and to only put American servicemen and women in harm's way
once all other options have been exhausted.
On both of these counts, the Trump administration doesn't just fail, they fail abysmally
because they haven't even tried. The United States is about to sleepwalk into yet another
devastating war in the Middle East without a debate as to whether such an escalation lies in
the U.S.'s national interest, and without the Trump administration even giving lip service to
diplomacy. Other potential foes in the world observe this behavior as they consider the payoff
of peaceful engagement with the U.S. versus conflict. Do we want to send those actors the
message that the U.S. shoots first and asks questions later?
The George W. Bush administration at least had the decency to lie to the American public
when it sold the electorate the Iraq War. And however skewed and faulty, the Iraq War was
preceded by a debate and a vote in Congress. Though President Bush eschewed diplomacy, he
nevertheless presented a deeply flawed case as to why diplomacy no longer was an option. Trump
and Tillerson simply don't even bother.
The Trump administration's recklessness is endangering America and putting American
servicemen and women at risk. If Tillerson was supposed to be the adult in the room steering
Trump in the right direction, he needs to start to act the part.
Before the escalation with Iran reaches a point of no return, diplomacy must be given a
chance. That responsibility falls on Mr. Tillerson. The former Exxonmobil CEO has Zarif's
number. It's time he places a call.
"... As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ." ..."
"... But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check." ..."
"... It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy. ..."
Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built
an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality
television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was,
"you're fired!"
On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian
counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet,
but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts
of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session,
which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was "tremendous."
President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up
in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue
in the conversation. President Trump's latest statement on the issue is that "we don't know for
sure" who was behind any meddling.
Later on Friday, President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson,
said
of the Syria agreement that, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being
able to work together in Syria."
On Sunday, President Trump
Tweeted
in praise of the
Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, "now it is time to move forward in working
constructively with Russia!"
It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in
relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge
of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!
Then President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley,
showed up on the weekend talk shows.
To CNN's Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his
official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.
Said
Ambassador Haley of Trump's meeting with Putin:
One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you
meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin
did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save
face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our
elections.
But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's
agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't
trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so
that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."
It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively
undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing,
foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to
sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get
along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his
foreign policy.
Surely the President – who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired
thousands – can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining
his foreign policy.
President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the
phone, ask for Nikki, and shout "you're FIRED!" into the telephone.
"... Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, made those comments during a visit to Ukraine on Sunday. The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko followed that by announcing he wants to begin talks on joining NATO. ..."
"... It's a war that is taken nearly 10,000 lives. It's displaced over a million people and both parties to the Minsk Accord have a long way to go in implementing the agreement. Though I fear, that Minsk is probably a non-starter as far as Kiev goes and here's why. According to the United Nations, the Ukrainian government has to hold a vote on decentralization for the East. It's yet to do that yet. That vote was meant to be a pre-cursor to the agreement and I don't think they're going to hold that vote. Here's why. If they hold that vote, I believe the far right militias will try to come to power and try to overthrow Petro Poroshenko. Petro Poroshenko doesn't have a death wish. The country is currently ruled by Ukrainian oligarchs in a tacit alliance with far right figures like the speaker of Rada, Andriy Parubiy who founded the neo-Nazi party right sector. ..."
"... Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs. ..."
AARON MATE:
Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, made those comments during a visit to
Ukraine on Sunday. The Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko followed that by announcing he
wants to begin talks on joining NATO.
Russia began meddling in Ukraine in part over fears
it would join the U.S. led military alliance. If the U.S. insists on a Russian shift on Ukraine
that could be a non-starter. I'm joined now by James Carden, contributing writer at The Nation
and Executive Editor of The American Committee for East-West Accord. He has also served as an
adviser on Russia policy at the State Department. James Carden, welcome.
JAMES CARDEN: Thank you very much.
AARON MATE: Thanks for joining us. Let's start with Ukraine. Immediately following this
historic meeting between Trump and Putin, Tillerson lays down the line that Russian behavior in
Ukraine has to change. Can you talk about what's at stake here for both sides of this?
JAMES CARDEN: There's quite a bit at stake considering the fact that the war in the
[inaudible 00:01:53] Donbass region continues to this day.
It's a war that is taken nearly
10,000 lives. It's displaced over a million people and both parties to the Minsk Accord have a
long way to go in implementing the agreement. Though I fear, that Minsk is probably a
non-starter as far as Kiev goes and here's why. According to the United Nations, the Ukrainian
government has to hold a vote on decentralization for the East. It's yet to do that yet. That
vote was meant to be a pre-cursor to the agreement and I don't think they're going to hold that
vote. Here's why. If they hold that vote, I believe the far right militias will try to come to
power and try to overthrow Petro Poroshenko. Petro Poroshenko doesn't have a death wish. The
country is currently ruled by Ukrainian oligarchs in a tacit alliance with far right figures
like the speaker of Rada, Andriy Parubiy who founded the neo-Nazi party right sector.
Tillerson is basically echoing the Obama Administration's talking points and I think for
a lot of foreign policy types who were hopeful that President Trump would take a more realist
approach to foreign policy, they're hopes have been disappointed and I think that Tillerson's
rhetoric and Tillerson's appointment of former NATO Ambassador, Kurt Volker, the
administration's point man on Ukraine, are all very troubling signs.
This is pretty schizoid administration with officials contradicting each other and the
President. This is a clear multiple personalities disorder. Of course it is clear who butter
Haley bread. It's not trump.
The U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations, Nikki Haley, was asked Saturday what consequences Russia will face as a
result of its
interference in the 2016 election
, and she declined to specify, telling Face the Nation
moderator John Dickerson, "I think you're going to have to ask the president."
Haley spoke to Face the Nation as President Trump concluded a three day trip to Europe for
the G-20 summit. While he was there,
Mr. Trump came face to face with Russian President Vladimir Putin
-- the two men have
spoken on the phone, but this was their first in-person encounter. During their meeting, which
was scheduled to last only 30 minutes but stretched to over two hours, Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson said Mr. Trump pressed Putin on Russia's meddling. But the Russians offered a
different account - both Putin and the Russian foreign minister said
they believed Mr. Trump accepted Putin's denial of Russian involvement
.
Haley discussed the apparent disparity between the Russian and American accounts, saying, "I
think we need to be realistic about what happened."
"You had two men walk into the room. You had two men who knew the exact same thing, which is
Russia did meddle in the elections. I think President Trump wanted to make sure that President
Putin was aware that he was acknowledging it, that he knew it. I think President Putin did what
we all expected him to do, which was deny it. And I think that is what it is," Haley said.
"President Trump still knows that they meddled. President Putin knows that they meddled, but he
is never going to admit to it. And that's all that happened."
Dickerson asked Haley what consequences Russia will face as a result of its
meddling.
"Not just Russia," she replied. "Any country needs to know that there are consequences when
they get involved in our elections. And I think that's why it's good that the investigations
are going on and we're analyzing and we're looking into all of that, and I think we need to
manage it accordingly. The one thing we don't want is for our political process to ever be
influenced or tainted in any way. And I think that we have to make sure that we're always
strong on that point and let everyone know that we're not going to put up with it."
"But given that the president, as you said, knows that the Russians meddled," Dickerson
pressed, "what consequences will they face as a result of that action?"
"I think you're going to have to ask the president," the ambassador responded. "I think
that's one of the things is -- first is confronting them, letting them know that we know this
happened, letting them know it can't happen again. I know that they had quite a bit of cyber
conversation in terms of cyber meddling or cyber abuse during not just political situations,
but also from a security situation, and they talked quite a bit on the cyber-attack risk. And
so I think we'll see what happens there. You know, keep in mind -- yesterday's meeting was all
about talk, but at the end of the day, this is all going to be about actions. We now have to
see where we go from there."
"... My own little list of "society's offenders" consists largely of the self-described gaggle of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts." Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of Donald Trump last November. ..."
"... Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. ..."
"... Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for the White House. That issue has reportedly been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues, but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice. ..."
"... Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues. ..."
"... But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to "tell the truth." In February, she blocked the appointment of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations because he is a Palestinian. ..."
"... Haley responded yes, that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state. ..."
"... She has never challenged the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least nominally opposed by the State Department and White House. ..."
"... Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile to Russia. ..."
"... Haley's analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum. And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an "accidental encounter" over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas they control. ..."
"... Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February, she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she appears not to understand very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia would not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled down, insisting that the United States would retain "sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine." ..."
"... Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations -- full of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set standards for the rest of the world. ..."
"... If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully, not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she's on my list and "she will never be missed ..."
I went to a meeting the other night with some Donald Trump supporters who, like me, had voted
for him based on expectations of a more rational foreign policy. They were suggesting that the president's
attempts to move in that direction had been sabotaged by officials inside the administration who
want to maintain the current warfare state. Remove those officials and Trump might just keep his
pledge to leave Bashar al-Assad alone while improving relations with Russia. I was somewhat skeptical,
noting that the White House had unilaterally initiated the April 7 cruise missile attack on a Syrian
airbase as well as the more recent warning against an alleged "planned" chemical attack, hardly moves
that might lead to better relations with Damascus and Moscow. But there are indeed some administration
figures who clearly are fomenting endless conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere.
One might reasonably start with Generals James Mattis and H.R. McMaster, both of whom are hardliners
on Afghanistan and Iran, but with a significant caveat. Generals are trained and indoctrinated to
fight and win wars, not to figure out what comes next. General officers like George Marshall or even
Dwight Eisenhower who had a broader vision are extremely rare, so much so that expecting a Mattis
or McMaster to do what falls outside their purview is perhaps a bit too much. They might be bad choices
for the jobs they hold, but at least they employ some kind of rational process, based on how they
perceive national interests, to make judgements. If properly reined in by a thoughtful civilian leadership,
which does not exist at the moment, they have the potential to be effective contributors to the national-security
discussion.
But several other notable figures in the administration deserve to be fired if there is to be
any hope of turning Trump's foreign policy around. In Arthur Sullivan's and W. S. Gilbert's The
Mikado , the Lord High Executioner
sings about
the "little list" he is preparing of people who "never will be missed" when he finally gets around
to fulfilling the requirements of his office. He includes "apologetic statesmen of a compromising
kind," indicating that the American frustration with the incompetence of its government is not unique,
nor is it a recent phenomenon.
My own little list of "society's offenders" consists largely of the self-described gaggle
of neoconservative foreign-policy "experts." Unfortunately, the neocons have proven to be particularly
resilient in spite of repeated claims that their end was nigh, most recently after the election of
Donald Trump last November.
Yet as most of the policies the neocons have historically espoused are indistinguishable from
what the White House is currently trying to sell, one might well wake up one morning and imagine
that it is 2003 and George W. Bush is still president. Still, hope springs eternal, and now that
the United States has celebrated its 241st birthday, it would be nice to think that in the new year
our nation might be purged of some of the malignancies that have prevailed since 9/11.
Number one on my little list is Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who is particularly
dangerous as she is holding a position where she can do bad things. Haley has been shooting from
the lip since she assumed office and, it has become clear, much of what she says goes without any
vetting by the Trump administration. It is never clear whether she is speaking for herself or for
the White House. That issue has reportedly
been dealt with by having the State Department clear in advance her comments on hot button issues,
but, if that is indeed the case, the change has been difficult to discern in practice.
Haley is firmly in the neocon camp, receiving praise from Senators like South Carolina's Lindsey
Graham and from the Murdoch media as well as
in the opinion pages of National Review and The Weekly Standard. Her speechwriter
is Jessica Gavora, who is the wife of the leading neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg. Haley
sees the United Nations as corrupt and bloated, in itself not an unreasonable conclusion, but she
has tied herself closely to a number of other, more debatable issues.
As governor of South Carolina, Haley became identified as an unquestioning
supporter of Israel . She
signed into law a bill to restrict the activities of the nonviolent pro-Palestinian
Boycott,
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, the first legislation of its kind on a state level.
Haley has also stated that "nowhere has the UN's failure been more consistent and more outrageous
than in its bias against our close ally Israel." On a recent visit to Israel, she was applauded by
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
stating "You know, all I've done is to tell the truth, and it's kind of overwhelming at the reaction
if there's anything I have no patience for, it's bullies, and the UN was being such a bully to Israel,
because they could."
But Haley sometimes goes far beyond trying to "tell the truth." In February, she blocked the appointment
of former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to a diplomatic position at the United Nations
because he is a Palestinian. In a
congressional hearing this past week, she was asked about the decision: "Is it this administration's
position that support for Israel and support for the appointment of a well-qualified individual of
Palestinian nationality to an appointment at the UN are mutually exclusive?" Haley responded yes,
that the administration is "supporting Israel" by blocking any Palestinian from any senior UN position
because Palestine is not recognized by Washington as an independent state.
At various UN meetings Haley has repeatedly and uncritically complained of institutional bias
towards Israel, asserting that the "days of Israel bashing are over," without ever addressing the
issue that Israeli treatment of the Palestinians might in part be responsible for the criticism leveled
against it. Her description of Israel as an "ally" is hyperbolic and she tends to be oblivious to
actual American interests in the region when Israel is involved. She has never challenged the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank as well as the recent large expansion of settlements, which are at least
nominally opposed by the State Department and White House.
Haley is inevitably a hardliner on Syria, reflecting the Israeli bias, and consistently hostile
to Russia. She has said that
regime change in Damascus is a Trump administration priority. Her most recent foray involves
the White House warning
that it had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad
regime."
Haley elaborated in a tweet, " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and
Iran who support him killing his own people." Earlier, on April 12, after Russia blocked a draft
UN resolution intended to condemn the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack,
Haley
said , "We need to see Russia choose to side with the civilized world over an Assad government
that brutally terrorizes its own people."
Haley's analysis of who is doing what to whom in Syria is certainly questionable at a minimum.
And her language is hardly supportive of possible administration diplomatic attempts to mend fences
with the Russians and can also be seen as quite dangerous as they increase the likelihood of an "accidental
encounter" over the skies of Syria as both sides harden their positions and seek to expand the areas
they control. She
has also said that , "We're calling [Russia] out [and] I don't think anything is off the table
at this point. I think what you're going to see is strong leadership. You're going to continue to
see the United States act when we need to act." Regarding Moscow's role on the UN Security Council,
she complained that, "All they've done is seven times veto against Syria every time they do something
to hurt their own people. And so Russia absolutely has not done what they're supposed to do."
Regarding Ukraine, Haley has taken an extreme position that guarantees Russian hostility. In February,
she addressed the UN Security Council regarding the Crimean conflict, which she appears not to understand
very well. She warned that sanctions against Russia
would
not be lifted until Moscow returned control over the peninsula to Kiev. On June 4, she doubled
down, insisting that the United States
would retain "sanctions strong and tough when it comes to the issue in Ukraine."
Haley is also increasingly highly critical of Iran, which she sees as the instigator of much of
the unrest in the Middle East, again reflecting the Israeli viewpoint. She claimed on April 20, during
her first session as president of the UN Security Council, that Iran and Hezbollah had "conducted
terrorist acts" for decades within the Middle East, ignoring the more serious terrorism support engaged
in by U.S. regional allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar. She
stated
last week that the Security Council's praise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement honored a state that
has engaged in "illicit missile launches," "support for terrorist groups," and "arms smuggling,"
while "stok[ing] regional conflicts and mak[ing] them harder to solve." All are perspectives that
might easily be challenged.
Haley is also much given to rhetoric reminiscent of George W. Bush during his first term. Regarding
North Korea, on May 16
she told reporters that, "We have to turn around and tell the entire international community:
You either support North Korea or you support us," echoing George W. Bush's sentiment that, "There's
a new sheriff in town and you're either with us or against us."
So Haley very much comes across as the neoconservatives' dream ambassador to the United Nations
-- full
of aggression, a staunch supporter of Israel, and assertive of Washington's preemptive right to set
standards for the rest of the world. That does not necessarily make her very good for the rest
of us, who will have to bear the burdens of imperial hubris. Nor is her tendency to overstate her
case a plus for the Trump administration itself, which is clearly seeking to work its way through
Russiagate–and just might be considering how to establish some kind of modus vivendi with
Vladimir Putin.
If Donald Trump really wants to drain the Washington swamp and reduce interference in other
nations, he might well continue that program by firing Nikki Haley. He could then appoint someone
as UN ambassador who actually believes that the United States has to deal with other countries respectfully,
not by constant bullying and threats. In the lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan, she's on my list and
"she will never be missed ."
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Assured Ukraine Sanctions Against Russia Won't Change
Jason Ditz Posted on
April 24, 2017 Categories
News Tags Crimea ,
Russia ,
Tillerson ,
Ukraine Hopes that the US sanctions
against Russia would be quickly rolled back when President Trump was elected in November didn't
pan out, and the latest comments from Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggest that the administration
has no intention of removing the sanctions at all.
Speaking with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko over the weekend, Tillerson reported told
him that the US sanctions on Russia will remain wholly in place "
until Russia returns control of the Crimean peninsula to Ukraine. " Needless to say, Russia
isn't going to do that.
Crimea was an autonomous oblast within Ukraine until 2014, when they held a referendum and
seceded. After that secession, they sought and gained accession into the Russian Federation, which
the US doesn't recognize. US officials have repeatedly presented this as Russia "invading Crimea"
or "taking Crimea by force," though the peninsula's ethnic Russian majority was able to effectively
secede outright without anything nearly so dramatic happening.
Nobody seriously expects Russia to "give back" Crimea, even if there was a mechanism by which
they could conceivably do so, which there isn't. Conditioning sanctions relief on that is tantamount
to announcing the sanctions as a permanent feature of US policy, a stance which will likely suit
the many Russia hawks in Congress and across Western Europe quite well.
"... While this is not the first US-Russia ceasefire brokered in Syria, it's the first in quite some time, as recent Syrian ceasefires have been brokered mostly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with the US insisting that the deals don't apply to their ongoing military operations. ..."
"... Putin and Trump agree to cease fire in Southern Syria. This means that Putin has surrendered the central principle of his Syria policy - territorial integrity of Syria. The carve up continues. Will some ostensible federal arrangement in Ukraine be the quid pro quo? ..."
"... I think it's better to say that the Syrian government and whatever counts as opposition in Daraa have come to an agreement, which means an end to the fighting in the Southwest - and that is in place since a few days already. ..."
"... This agreement between 'Putin' and 'Trump' only means that Russia will guarantee that the US doesn't do any dirty tricks when the Jordan-Syria reopens for business ..."
"... As Cockburn says, anything Trump comes out with is meaningless. he'll say the opposite tomorrow. However engage in a major war in Syria, particularly if against the Russians, that's another matter. His electoral base wouldn't tolerate it, if it were likely to lead to American deaths. ..."
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has
announced that the United States and Russia have agreed on a ceasefire in southwestern Syria, aiming
to halt all fighting in the area, and according to US officials allowing the rebels to shift their
focus to fighting against ISIS.
Details are still scant on this, and it's not clear how far east the ceasefire is intended to
extend. US officials say the entire goal is to stop attacks against the rebels, while Russia clearly
wants the US to stop attacking pro-government forces in the region. There has also been mention of
humanitarian aid being allowed in, but past ceasefires have almost uniformly failed at that goal.
The ceasefire is to begin at noon on Sunday, and is open-ended. Tillerson said it could be a first
step which, if successful, would be spread to other parts of the country. He also, however, added
that the US still insists upon Syrian President Assad and his entire family being removed from any
positions of power in Syria.
While this is not the first US-Russia ceasefire brokered in Syria, it's the first in quite
some time, as recent Syrian ceasefires have been brokered mostly by Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with
the US insisting that the deals don't apply to their ongoing military operations.
paul | Jul 7, 2017 2:08:20 PM | 1
Putin and Trump agree to cease fire in Southern Syria. This means that Putin has surrendered
the central principle of his Syria policy - territorial integrity of Syria. The carve up continues.
Will some ostensible federal arrangement in Ukraine be the quid pro quo?
I think it's better to say that the Syrian government and whatever counts as opposition
in Daraa have come to an agreement, which means an end to the fighting in the Southwest - and
that is in place since a few days already.
This agreement between 'Putin' and 'Trump' only means that Russia will guarantee that the
US doesn't do any dirty tricks when the Jordan-Syria reopens for business
Yes, you have a good handle on what's transpired. Negotiations for reconciliation have carried
on since the last quarter of 2016, and it was becoming clear that a positive resolution was soon
to occur.
Patrick Cockburn, in his
most recent article for the Independent, quotes a former US State Department official who
said that: "[W]e don't have a policy in Syria, everybody in the Middle East knows that whatever
is said by the Pentagon, State Department or National Security Council lacks authority because
whatever assurances they give may be contradicted within the hour by a presidential tweet or by
one of the factions in the White House."
Cockburn adds: "the ex-official lamented that
it was like living in an arbitrary and unpredictable dictatorship."
While this may very well be true as far as operational details are concerned, it is apparent
that "regime change" (orchestrating a coup d'etat) is the overarching goal the US is pursuing,
however haphazardly, in Syria with Iran next in line. When was the last time the US military got
involved somewhere and then just packed up and went back home? Cockburn is missing an important
detail and he is one of the few MSM journalists who is not acting as a propagandist for Western
interests.
The media is extremely allergic to telling it like it is and I wonder if MSM journalists like
Cockburn and Robert Fisk deliberately avoid mentioning certain things in order to safeguard their
jobs? I find it hard to believe that Cockburn, in this case, is not aware that "regime
change" was never really taken off the table. In the same article he goes on to mention US plans
for Iran so it is almost certain he knows what is going on in Syria. It is actually a decent piece
but readers who may not be aware of the state of affairs in Syria are getting an incomplete snapshot
of the situation there. Is holding the US and its "coalition" to full account an MSM "red-line"
that even the charmingly named "Independent" is unwilling to cross?
This means that Putin has surrendered the central principle of his Syria policy - territorial
integrity of Syria. The carve up continues.
I rather doubt that interpretation.
The expression is "south-west Syria". That means the Israeli
front. Maybe calming the shooting at Israel, in order to remove the need for Israeli reactions?
I don't actually know whether the Amman-Damascus road is open for traffic, but given that I
saw recently that there are still busses from Damascus to Raqqa, dangerous as that may seem, I
wouldn't be surprised to hear that busses are making the transit between Amman and Damascus, no
doubt with innumerable stops for inspection by one militia or another.
These dangerous trips do occur. Just to give you a flavour, a Syrian I know, a Druze, had to
go to Aleppo. They were stopped by Da'ish. As a Druze, instant death if discovered. He was taken
before the Amir. Are you Sunni? yes. Then prove it by reciting the Surat al-Baqara (the longest
chapter of the Qur'an). He didn't know it other than the beginning. He started, and then quickly
figured out that they didn't know it either, so he continued reciting Quranic style rubbish, until
the Amir got bored and fell asleep, At which point he was released. He described them as slitty-eyed
thus Turkic.
As Cockburn says, anything Trump comes out with is meaningless. he'll say the opposite
tomorrow. However engage in a major war in Syria, particularly if against the Russians, that's
another matter. His electoral base wouldn't tolerate it, if it were likely to lead to American
deaths.
How can a realist bear Nikki Haley and demand return of Crimea ? Only neocon can...
Notable quotes:
"... Specifically Tillerson turned neocon foreign policy orthodoxy on its head by arguing that a foreign policy based on promoting US 'values' carried the risk of obstructing US national security and economic interests: ..."
"... In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can't achieve our national security goals. It really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests. ..."
"... At this point an essential qualification is needed. When US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they do not mean a foreign policy constructed exclusively around the 'values' Tillerson referred to: "freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world over." People in Saudi Arabia or in the occupied Palestinian territories are not the object of US sympathy despite being denied all these things. ..."
"... Rather when US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they mean one where the US seeks to use these 'values' as leverage to increase its geopolitical influence as part of an ideological mission to entrench its global position. This is the foreign policy that Tillerson appears to be repudiating ..."
"... On Russia, Tillerson said ''there's almost no trust'' between the world's greatest nuclear powers, but that the administration was trying to rebuild trust by looking at one issue at a time. First up is Syria, as Washington and Moscow see if they can get a cease-fire that can hold. ..."
In first address to State Department and before meeting Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov US Secretary
of State Tillerson repudiates neocon ideas and supports a 'realist' foreign policy.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, delivering his
first address to the staff of the State Department, has set out a vision of US foreign policy
which if different would be radically different from anything seen over the last few decades.
Specifically Tillerson turned neocon foreign policy orthodoxy on its head by arguing that
a foreign policy based on promoting US 'values' carried the risk of obstructing US national security
and economic interests:
In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting
our values, we probably can't achieve our national security goals. It really creates obstacles
to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests.
At this point an essential qualification is needed. When US politicians and diplomats talk of
a foreign policy based on 'values' they do not mean a foreign policy constructed exclusively around
the 'values' Tillerson referred to: "freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world
over." People in Saudi Arabia or in the occupied Palestinian territories are not the object of US
sympathy despite being denied all these things.
Rather when US politicians and diplomats talk of a foreign policy based on 'values' they mean
one where the US seeks to use these 'values' as leverage to increase its geopolitical influence as
part of an ideological mission to entrench its global position. This is the foreign policy that Tillerson
appears to be repudiating . Interestingly, in the same speech he is reported to have spoken
about the need to work for better relations with Russia, the country that the neocons have cast as
the US's primary ideological and geopolitical adversary:
On Russia, Tillerson said ''there's almost no trust'' between the world's greatest nuclear
powers, but that the administration was trying to rebuild trust by looking at one issue at a time.
First up is Syria, as Washington and Moscow see if they can get a cease-fire that can hold.
It need hardly be said that within Official Washington these ideas are heresy and it is far from
certain whether most of the other officials in the Trump administration share them.
The President has however spoken similarly in the past and it seems that for the moment Tillerson
has his support.
The problem if multiple personalities syndrome that Trump administration demonstrates that is mentioned
below is a real one. It looks like Tilerson has its own version of foreign policy distinct from Trump.
Haley also has her own definitely distinct and more neocons than Tillerson, and Tillerson did not fired
her for insubordination. Yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative. ..."
"... It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog and actually some stability over time. ..."
"... Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will it obey the commander-in-chief? Putin, Trump meeting gives way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself. ..."
"... I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone. But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This is a fundamental disagreement. ..."
"... So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan - a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012. ..."
"... I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this here: Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan? ..."
"... How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable . ..."
"... more on the alleged chemical weapon attack of early april from al masdar.. OPCW ignores possibility Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was staged: diplomat and.... US refuses Russia's offer to inspect Shayrat Airbase for chemical weapons ..."
"... here's the transcript to go with your video of the Tillerson presser held today following the Putin/Trump gab - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017 ..."
"... The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives) will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL. ..."
"... The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes. ..."
"... Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader. ..."
"... Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but... ..."
"... Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree. ..."
"... The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the matter. ..."
Two national leaders brought their heads of foreign ministry to an international meeting. Score
1 for diplomacy. They didn't bring their generals. And we've all seen how powerfully Russian diplomacy
works. The message to the world and all stakeholders is that it keeps on working - work with it
if you want to get somewhere.
Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not
completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic
consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative.
It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises
if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively
pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog
and actually some stability over time.
I don't think anyone was looking for much out of this, and it was the wrong venue for such.
But the meta-messages and to see how the leaders would interact were the key things, and personally
I'm satisfied.
More info coming...Tillerson says it was a good meeting that went on so long because they had
so much to talk about. Very engaged:
Listen: Tillerson describes
meeting between Trump and Putin . The Duran's Adam Garrie picked up on the last soundbite
in this clip where Tillerson says maybe Russia has the right approach to Syria and maybe we have
the wrong approach. Very egalitarian view, not quite as bombshell as it sounds I think, more a
way of signifying agreement on the (purported) end goals.
Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin
to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will
it obey the commander-in-chief?
Putin, Trump meeting gives
way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical
trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta
message got through to Trump himself.
Everyone seems happy that Trump and Putin shook hands and agreed on something. But wasn't agreeing
on SW Syria easy? Seems that both would want to avoid the messiness of stepped-up Israeli action.
I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone.
But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This
is a fundamental disagreement.
So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is
some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous
region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan
- a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012.
IMO there is a high chance of cw ff leading to threat of US attack in the coming weeks. As
a last-ditch effort to avoid a larger war, Putin might then relent and a allow a division that
makes "Sunnistan" a reality.
I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make
the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this
here:
Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan?
How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting
all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between
the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable .
Well, it appears that the Putin/Abe meet was productive despite being delayed by the meet with
Trump going long, http://tass.com/politics/955268.
TASS has the most detailed report thanks to Lavrov's presser,
http://tass.com/world/955288 "The situation
in Syria, in Ukraine, on the Korean Peninsula, problems of cyber security, and a range of other
issues were discussed in detail," he said, adding that the two leaders "agreed on a number of
concrete things." Just what those "concrete things" are we'll need to wait and see.
Tillerson's answers to question about how much Trump pressed Putin on 'Russian interference'
vaguely implied that the Russians accepted responsibility as he suggested that the Russians were
willing to discuss guarantees against such interference happening in the future.
The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red
scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think
it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems
from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives)
will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL.
The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants
reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how
strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes.
The length of time that this took shows how close to the razor's edge US-Russia relations are.
Care must be taken to avoid a miscalculation.
Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long
said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in
the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather
than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader.
It seems to me that the failure to agree "next steps" coupled with a failure to agree on a
future meeting is significant. And the lack of detail from the Russian side (as per karlof1 @33)
also suggests that the meeting didn't go well.
"Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin
to see what the strength of Trump's power is ... how in control is Trump? One wonders how much
of this meta message got through to Trump himself."
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed
the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but...
@Jackrabbit
Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic
pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree.
The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US
moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy
about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the
matter.
A reminder, and if you've never seen it, how MSM (in this case C-span) broadcasts fake news as
war propaganda- footage from 1991 Gulf War. This was eye opener for me as I recall being totally
sucked in at time by both the CNN and C-Span stories.
Nikki Haley is hooked on phonics - and bombing Iran
RI Staff
63
Haley presents book report to UN Security Council
Nikki Haley is widely considered to be the greatest diplomat to have ever lived. But did
you know that up until just a few days ago, Nikki Haley
didn't even know how to read?
Washington's rookie UN ambassador to the United Nations has been checkmating Russia for
months, but last week she finally found the time to finish her first children's story,
The Scorpion and the Frog
, which tells the tale of two animal companions who are drone-bombed
by the US military while attending a wedding in Afghanistan.
As you can probably imagine, Nikki is very proud of her accomplishment and wants to let
everyone know that she read a story about animals and really, really enjoyed it.
But recently she's been yapping about frogs and scorpions at totally inappropriate times.
Nikki Haley literally can't stop talking about this dumb pop-up book that she read.
Even when she recites her daily prayers to Moloch at the Security Council, frog tales inevitable
get added into the mix:
But as RT
pointed out
: "While the allusion might seem novel, it was actually used before in an op-ed
by Chaim Shacham for the Miami Herald in 2015, titled 'Iran nuclear pact: Tale of the scorpion
and the frog.'"
"... There are plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims is at the center of its "chemical" fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims make thereby zero sense to any objective observer. ..."
"... UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S. and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House "warning", which had to be defused within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options. ..."
"... So Sayeth Nimrata Randhawa Haley, she who was paid US$110,000 a year as a fundraiser for Lexington Medical Center back in 2008, at a time when the average salary of her peers doing similar work for non-profit organisations of similar size and with similar budgets as her employer was just over US$44,000. Moreover Haley expected to be paid US$125,000 for the work. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article16614233.html ..."
"... Something about the way Nikki Haley handled her parents' company Exotica International's finances while she was accountant there is also very fishy, not least the fact that she consistently filed her own tax returns and those of the parents' business late. ..."
"... "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Statement as Vice-president, during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988), commenting on the Navy warship USS Vincennes having shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in a commercial air corridor on July 3, killing 290 civilians, as quoted in "Perspectives", the quote of the week section of Newsweek (15 August 1988[1]) p. 15; also quoted in "Rally Round the Flag, Boys" by Michael Kingsley in TIME magazine (12 September 1988). Newsweek cites this phrase as said about the downing of the Iranian airliner to the group of the Republican ethnic leaders ... ..."
"... psychopaths - or the criminally, terminally inattentive - have no regrets. they leave regrets to the rest of the world for their psychopathic / acts of depraved indifference. ..."
"... Adolf Hitler is my conscience - last words of Nazi governer general - Poland ww2 ..."
"... The utter contempt for the public and its level of intelligence is astounding. ..."
"... There are two views that make limited military force seem like a good idea: one is the perceived invincibility of the U.S. military within Versailles and the other is the perception of Russia as the land of Yakov Smirnov. Trump doesn't want a major war. I'll agree, and outside of McCains of the world, no one does. This doesn't mean Trump and his circle aren't under the impression they can skip the back nine and paunch a few cruise missiles to win a limited war. ..."
"... Nikki Hailey wants a few scalps for her future Presidential run just like Hillary with Gaddafi or how Rummy lame Ted the absence of targets in Afghanistan he could run on CNN. ..."
"... Noted lunatic, Fareed Zakaria pronounced Trump as officially the President when he launched cruise missiles against Syria. Thugs look for victims when they need to establish their power. ..."
"... Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove. It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts. The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble. Nikki Haley is a standout, Marco Rubio is another prime example. ..."
"... Yes, I realize that Haley is nominally a "diplomat", so you already covered that territory. But it struck me that the requirements you list apply more generally. As I recently commented elsewhere: beginning a few years ago, watching news videos of Putin helped me see through the Western propaganda profile characterizing Vladimir Putin as a ruthless, utterly self-serving reptilian dictator and ex-KGB thug. I was also impressed by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Both men comport themselves like authentic, sober professionals, albeit that they still labor under the misapprehension that the West has retained an appreciation of, and (potential) competence in, the indispensable art of diplomacy. ..."
"... The collective Western political mind, possibly due to capitalism-induced dementia, has lost its capacity for understanding and practicing diplomacy. When one abandons an art, it's like abandoning an industry: over time, the basic knowledge and understanding of the craft is lost. ..."
Trump administration officials are walking back the
White House announcement of its plans to fake another "chemical weapon attack" in Syria.
There are
plenty of reasons why the U.S. would want to accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons
but zero sane reasons for the Syrian government to use such. Russia and Syria have
long insisted on sending chemical weapon inspectors to the airbase the Trump administration claims
is at the center of its "chemical" fairy tale. The U.S. has held the inspectors back. The claims
make thereby zero sense to any objective observer.
The walk back, as well as the statement itself, may not be serious at all. This White House seems
unpredictable and the U.S. military, the intelligence services and the White House itself have no
common view or policy. One day they claim the U.S. will leave Syria after ISIS is defeated, the next
day they announce new bases and eternal support for the Syrian Kurds.
The way the White House statement came out, without knowledge of the relevant agencies and little
involvement of the agency principals, was not cynical but
just dumb . It sounds like the idea was dropped by Natanyahoo to his
schoolboy Jared Kushner who then convinced his father in law to issue the crazy statement. Now
officials are send out with the worst argument ever to claim that the White House "warning" made
sense.
"The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful," they say. "The trees
were saved!"
"
It appears that they took the warning seriously," Mattis said. "They didn't do it," he told
reporters flying with him to Brussels for a meeting of NATO defense ministers.
He offered no evidence other than the fact that an attack had not taken place.
---
"
I can tell you that due to the president's actions, we did not see an incident," [U.S. Ambassador
to the UN Nikki] Haley told the House Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing Tuesday.[..]
[...]
"I would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women and children," Haley
continued.
Haley "would like to think" a lot of stuff - unfortunately she is not capable of such. A bit later
she issued an egocentric
tweet about
UN peacekeeping that will surely increase U.S. political standing in the world (not):
I can even agree with Haley that UN peacekeeping has gotten way out of hand. To have UN mandated
troops spreading
Cholera in Haiti and
raping their way
through various countries does not help anyone. But the way to end this is to stop handing out
mandates for such missions. To (re-)mandate undertrained/underpaid peacekeeping forces in the UN
Security Council while cutting the budget for them is irresponsible. It will corrupt the troops and
their behavior even more.
UN peacekeepers are often an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. By cutting them down the U.S.
and Haley are limiting their own political options. The White House "warning", which had to be defused
within a day, has a similar effect. People will become less inclined to believe any U.S. claims or
to follow up on U.S. demands. Both statements have limited future policy options.
Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?
Jen | Jun 29, 2017 7:46:08 AM |
13 "Just 5 months into our time here, we've cut over half a billion $$$ from the UN peacekeeping
budget & we're only getting started."
So Sayeth Nimrata Randhawa Haley, she who was paid US$110,000 a year as a fundraiser for Lexington
Medical Center back in 2008, at a time when the average salary of her peers doing similar work
for non-profit organisations of similar size and with similar budgets as her employer was just
over US$44,000. Moreover Haley expected to be paid US$125,000 for the work.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article16614233.html
Something about the way Nikki Haley handled her parents' company Exotica International's finances
while she was accountant there is also very fishy, not least the fact that she consistently filed
her own tax returns and those of the parents' business late.
b, 'Will the Trump administration come to regret such moves?'
i think this runs along the lines of
george xli ...
"I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are... I'm not
an apologize-for-America kind of guy."
Statement as Vice-president, during a presidential campaign function (2 Aug 1988), commenting
on the Navy warship USS Vincennes having shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in a commercial air
corridor on July 3, killing 290 civilians, as quoted in "Perspectives", the quote of the week
section of Newsweek (15 August 1988[1]) p. 15; also quoted in "Rally Round the Flag, Boys"
by Michael Kingsley in TIME magazine (12 September 1988). Newsweek cites this phrase as said
about the downing of the Iranian airliner to the group of the Republican ethnic leaders ...
... psychopaths - or the criminally, terminally inattentive - have no regrets. they leave regrets
to the rest of the world for their psychopathic / acts of depraved indifference.
What I said at the end of the last thread seems to me still the probable explanation of what happened,
and why there's walking back:
The White House warning to Asad was a sort of official version of a Trump 3 am tweet, wasn't
it? He heard about (I won't say read, as it's unlikely) Hersh's article, and got in a rage.
He'll show 'em, he's serious. And had Spicer put out the warning, rather than tweeting it -
to show he's really, really, serious, and not someone who just tweets at 3 in the morning in
a rage.
There never was a serious plan (difficult as though that would be for many commenters here to
accept). It was just a blast of rage from Trump. I doubt if Trump wants serious war, even if there
are forces trying to push him into it.
I regard Mrs. Nikki Haley to be a sock puppet of the Trump administration and was chosen because
she has no spine/backbone.
- Judging by her previous statements she isn't "the brighest bulb in the chandalier". But that's
what the current administration was looking for, right ?
There are two views that make limited military force seem
like a good idea: one is the perceived invincibility of the U.S. military within Versailles and
the other is the perception of Russia as the land of Yakov Smirnov. Trump doesn't want a major
war. I'll agree, and outside of McCains of the world, no one does. This doesn't mean Trump and
his circle aren't under the impression they can skip the back nine and paunch a few cruise missiles
to win a limited war.
Nikki Hailey wants a few scalps for her future Presidential run just like
Hillary with Gaddafi or how Rummy lame Ted the absence of targets in Afghanistan he could run
on CNN.
Noted lunatic, Fareed Zakaria pronounced Trump as officially the President when he launched
cruise missiles against Syria. Thugs look for victims when they need to establish their power.
Not a word from either Trump or Tillerson on this bullshit. Looks like Trump has just thrown it
out there for whatever reason and left the lackeys to deal with the fallout.
Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican in an
Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove.
It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts.
The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites
and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The
candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble.
Nikki Haley is a standout, Marco Rubio is another prime example.
Nikki Haley is one of many "leaders" that were created using Newt Gingrich's "Republican
in an Can" kits. These kits were tweaked and perfected by Karl Rove.
It is required of the candidate to be completely malleable and to contain no original thoughts.
The only skill requirement is that the candidate must be capable of memorizing canned sound bites
and patriotic slogans which are to be repeated and used as answers to any and all questions. The
candidate must never, ever waver from these sound bites. When they do, they get in trouble.
______________________________________
I also think it's worth adding that in this century-- especially after 9/11/2001-- the US,
and even Western Europe has "created" leaders and official spokespersons using "Statesman in a
Can" and "Diplomat in a Can" kits.
Yes, I realize that Haley is nominally a "diplomat", so you already covered that territory.
But it struck me that the requirements you list apply more generally. As I recently commented elsewhere: beginning a few years ago, watching news videos of Putin
helped me see through the Western propaganda profile characterizing Vladimir Putin as a ruthless,
utterly self-serving reptilian dictator and ex-KGB thug. I was also impressed by Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov. Both men comport themselves like authentic, sober professionals, albeit that they still labor
under the misapprehension that the West has retained an appreciation of, and (potential) competence
in, the indispensable art of diplomacy.
The collective Western political mind, possibly due to capitalism-induced dementia, has lost
its capacity for understanding and practicing diplomacy. When one abandons an art, it's like abandoning
an industry: over time, the basic knowledge and understanding of the craft is lost.
It's a bipartisan, or transnational, degeneracy. Whether it's the supposedly "eloquent", "intellectual"
Obama and John Kerry, or Trump and Tillerson, (or Macron et al) the Western team looks, sounds,
and acts like a troupe of life-sized animatronic puppets programmed to spew tendentious talking
points du jour.
______________________________________
The "Statesman/Diplomat in a Can" kit fits right in with my "animatronic puppets" idea; instead
of reasonably honest professional diplomats and statesmen, the West prefers talking-point spewing,
hollow narcissists.
"... Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks release last month of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE. ..."
"... The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques." ..."
"... Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read this . ..."
"... According to another report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious." ..."
"... What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about. ..."
Peterlin's appointment to run Tillerson's office was
announced more authoritatively by the Washington Post on February 12. There her Texas Republican
Party credentials were reported in detail, but not her expertise in signals, codes, and cyber warfare.
"Peterlin has a wealth of government and private-sector experience. After distinguished service
as a naval officer, she graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit [Texas and Louisiana]. She then went to work for House Majority
Leader Dick Armey [Republican, Texas], just days before the 9/11 attacks. Afterward, she helped negotiate
and draft key pieces of national security legislation, including the authorization for the use of
force in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and the legislation that established the Department of Homeland
Security. 'She's very substance- and policy-focused. She's not necessarily a political person,' said
Brian Gunderson, a State Department chief of staff for Condoleezza Rice who worked with Peterlin
in the House [Armey's office]. Following a stint as legislative counsel and national security adviser
for then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Peterlin moved over to the Commerce Department, where she
served as the No. 2 official in the Patent and Trademark Office."
Peterlin's appointment triggered a lawsuit by a group of patent lawyers and investors against
the Secretary of Commerce. On July 23, 2007, two months after Peterlin was sworn in, papers filed
in the US District Court for the District of Columbia charged that Peterlin's appointment violated
the Patent Act of 1999 requiring the Director and Deputy Director of the Patent Office to have "professional
experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin, the lawsuit charged, "lack[ed] the
requisite professional experience and background." The court was
asked to order a replacement for Peterlin "who fulfills those requirements." Six months later,
in December 2007 Judge James Robertson dismissed the case on several technicalities. Peterlin's lack
of professional skill and alleged incompetence were not tested in court. Peterlin didn't last long
in her job and left in 2008. Peterlin's career publications focus on computer and internet surveillance,
interception, and espionage. She started with a 1999 essay entitled "The law of information conflict:
national security in cyberspace." In December 2001, with two co-authors, she published a paper at
the Federalist Society in Washington entitled "The USA Patriot Act and information sharing between
the intelligence and law enforcement communities". It can be read in full
here .
Peterlin argued "the unalterable need for greater information sharing means that the U.S. no longer
has the luxury of simply separating law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Separation is a security
risk." Peterlin's conclusion: "Who performs the surveillance may also matter, but the conditions
of the performance are of the most critical importance the focus of attention should be principally
on the techniques by which intelligence is gathered domestically and not on whether other members
of the intelligence community are permitted to view the intelligence gathered as a result of those
operations."
After she left the Patent and
Trademark
Office in 2008, Peterlin became an employee of the Mars family companies with the job title,
"technology strategy officer". That lasted six years, before she went into business for herself at
a consulting company she called Profectus Global Corporation. There is almost no trace of that entity
on the internet
; it appears unrelated to similarly named entities in Hungary and Australia. Peterlin then joined
XLP Capital in Boston in November 2015.
Peterlin's appointment as managing director of the firm, according to XLP's press release, reveals
that when Peterlin was in the US Navy she was a cyber communications specialist. She was also seconded
by the Navy to the White House as a Navy "social aide" when Hillary Clinton was First Lady.
XLP didn't mention that at the time Peterlin was hired, she was also a board member at Draper
Labs, the Massachusetts designer, among many things, of US missile guidance systems and the cyber
weapons to combat them. According to XLP, one of Peterlin's selling points was "extensive experience
with administrative law as well as deep operations exposure to Federal agencies, including the Departments
of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services." For deep operations,
read cyber warfare.
Before Peterlin joined Tillerson two months ago, her employer at XLP Capital was Matthew Stack
(below). In his internet resume Stack reports he is "an accomplished computer hacker and cryptanalyst,
and has written and advised on state-run network cyber-warfare policy, and agility-based strategic
combat. He was recognized in 2009 by Hackaday as one of the top 10 most influential hardware hackers."
At Lambda Prime, Stack claims credit for two cyber warfare projects in 2013 – the practical, "weaponized
virtual machines with heterogenous nodes for unpredictable and agile offensive fronts" and the theoretical,
"Clausewitz, a modern theory of grand strategy for cyber military forces, and the role of guerilla
cyber tactics". The following year Stack
hosted
his first "Annual Hackathon" - "Hackathoners flew in from all across the United States to inhabit
a 27 acre, early 1900s mansion that serves as the Lambda Prime corporate headquarters".
On social media Stack has revealed his involvement in internet hacking operations in Kiev; also
which side he was on. "Ominous clouds hang over Kiev's central square, like Russia over its post-Soviet
era neighboring Slavic states, " Stack
instagrammed
to his followers. "The country may be a mess, but Kiev has the fastest internet I've ever clocked
– now I know why so many hackers live in Kiev. Thanks to my amazing tour guide @m.verbulya."
Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified
into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both
of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks
release last month of the Central Intelligence
Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE.
This was developed for the CIA's Remote Devices Branch; the leaked files for the UMBRAGE operations
date from 2012 to 2016. The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library
of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but
also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques
were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data
destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques."
Some of the UMBRAGE
components date
from 2012; most from 2014. A leaked memo dated June 19, 2013, reveals one of the UMBRAGE managers
telling others: "As far as Stash organization, I would recommend that you create one larger "Umbrage"
project, and then create separate repositories within that project for each component. Then there
is one central point on the site for 'all things Umbrage'."
Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents
have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the
US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson
endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read
this .
According to another
report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source
code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA
documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious."
Yesterday Tillerson claimed to make "a distinction when cyber tools are used to interfere with
the internal decisions among countries as to how their elections are conducted. That is one use of
cyber tools. Cyber tools to disrupt weapons programs – that's another use of the tools." With Peterlin
prompting by his side during his meetings with Lavrov and Putin, Tillerson knew this was not a distinction
US cyber operations against Russia make.
What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these
operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance
of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done
at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for
Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about.
Peterlin's and Stack's public records are two reasons why none of this is secret from the Russian
services. That's another reason why in Moscow yesterday Lavrov would not look at Tillerson during
their press conference - and why Putin refused to be photographed with him.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Outgoing US President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved in the multinational project.
Share
Copy
21,994
20191031-ukrainegate.pdf by Barbara Boyd, [email protected] - Be the first to be notified when we release the next parts, text sc20 to (202)609-8371 - text stop to leave at anytime. Part 2 is now available.
Subscribe
Labels: Julian Assange , Mike Pompeo , Wikileaks
2 comments:Nick Ginex April 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM
FILE PHOTO: Haley laughing with her Russian counterpart at the UN Vassily Nebenzia © Reuters/Lucas Jackson
Haley takes part in Venezuelans' anti-Maduro protest in New York on September 27, 2018 © AFP/Jim Watson
Print
