"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
There are hardly any rational actors left in the Trump administration.
Rex Tillerson is a
joke and should have long done these bunch of crazies. Russia and China should join forces
and should tell Trump and his Ziocon backers what is at stake if they attack Syria or Iran.
Nikki Haley is the mouthpiece of the Zionist regime and tried to make Colin Powell. If the
US-Zionist and the Saudi regime attack Iran, at least the Zionist regime and the decadent
Saudi one will be doomed. The US should adjust itself to more coffins from the Middle East
and Afghanistan.
Just recently I watched an interview with Security adviser McMasters on BBC,
and I could not believe the nonsense this guy was saying about Iran, Hezbollah et cetera. He
is very dangerous. Such a policy advice is not rational but insane.
There are hardly any rational actors left in the Trump administration.
Rex Tillerson is a
joke and should have long done these bunch of crazies. Russia and China should join forces
and should tell Trump and his Ziocon backers what is at stake if they attack Syria or Iran.
Nikki Haley is the mouthpiece of the Zionist regime and tried to make Colin Powell. If the
US-Zionist and the Saudi regime attack Iran, at least the Zionist regime and the decadent
Saudi one will be doomed. The US should adjust itself to more coffins from the Middle East
and Afghanistan.
Just recently I watched an interview with Security adviser McMasters on BBC,
and I could not believe the nonsense this guy was saying about Iran, Hezbollah et cetera. He
is very dangerous. Such a policy advice is not rational but insane.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have
no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist
Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling
of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump
says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year
during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy
ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or
believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy
is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and
isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."
Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which
specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching
reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth
and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker,
Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great
that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."
Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the
garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump
just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which
the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual
reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just
our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent
that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its
ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.
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!
Saker, of course, if "Russia firster". And that makes his analyses of Russia weaker than it should be. But his analysis of the USA
is superb.
Notable quotes:
"... What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world. ..."
"... And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy. ..."
"... And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked. ..."
"... re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc. ..."
"... The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say. ..."
"... US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change. ..."
"... Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action. ..."
"... It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c) ..."
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the
US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact
US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity
to go public about it.
But for 9/11, Alqaeda was always the US's baby. They were used in Afghanistan against the Soviets. US and its ally Pakistan
fully backed Osama and his ilk for a long time. If not for 9/11, US and Alqeda's good relations would have been unbroken.
It's like US-Japan's relations. It got rocky cuz of disagreement over China and then Pearl Harbor. But had it not been for
that, US-Japan relations would have been smooth throughout the 20th century. US had initially backed Japan's war with Russia and
looked the other way when Japan moved into Korea and China. It was Japan's over-reaching that set the two nations apart and led
to Pearl Harbor. But after WWII, they were friends against against China and Russia.
So, it shouldn't surprise us that US and Alqaeda are pals again. They were for a long time. It was US presence in Saudi Arabia
that made Osama bitter and turn against his ally, the US. But with Iran and Shias as the Big Enemy, the US and Alqaeda are friends
again.
And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream
of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action,
especially for clueless people.
What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq,
and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation
is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially
'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world.
And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever,
and the Zionists are happy.
And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked.
...These were great successes in a sick way. The Zionist-US goal was to spread chaos and turn those nations into hellholes
that will take many decades to recover. And since 9/11, there's been hardly any major terrorist attacks in America.
Beauties of time zone(s). Anyway . The usual Saker's "panic attack". So, for those 10 % here who aren't actually on his
wavelength, a brief comment. As usual there is a bit of discrepancy between:
the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria
and
Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)
attack on Russian forces in Syria)
.attack Iranian forces in Syria)
but not important, of course. Just think "USA bad", "Russia good" and all makes sense. Surprisingly, though, this is well stated
Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably
futile.
with a bit of Freudian slip
that is really frightening.
re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China
are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the
message, that one "USA bad" etc.
Now, he got this mostly right:
whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign
superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.
Except they do believe in something: POWER.
He got close here, I admit:
Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
1. We can buy anybody
2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
3. Those we cannot bully we kill
4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do
Now, I also admit THIS is quite interesting:
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that
the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope,
in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the
honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.
Still, the explanation feels weak.
Imbeciles and cowards. Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them.
He could've gone deeper, but that would've complicated the message. Propaganda is all about keeping things simple and close
to the lowest denominator (read imbecile). Makes sense, actually. He is correct here, though:
Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.
The usual "Bad USA has been losing badly" compulsory part of the article we'll skip here, save:
.to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option
("panic" thing) And, of course oh man .
Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart.
I suggest reading this a couple of times. For a couple of reasons I'd leave to the reader. Back to topic at hand:
I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria
and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it.
with
I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't
think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway,
right?!)
..("panic" thing)
and
Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them
from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely
..("panic" thing).
and
The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans.
Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire?
You tell me!
("panic" thing).
And, at the end, kudos actually, he appears to be getting there:
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has
always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational.
This isn't bad:
The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more
catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope
so. That is the best I can say.
But I'd keep focus on "I frankly don't know if they can do it". Now, back to fanboys and resident agenda pushers.
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018.
US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs
like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change.
America needs a new civil 'war' to set things right. The ruling elites must be outed, routed, and destroyed. But the elites
have framed the civil war in America as between 'nazis' and 'antifa', and this divide-and-conquer strategy gets nothing done.
The American Left is more at war with Civil War monuments than with the REAL power. This civil 'war' must be between people vs
the elites. But elites have manipulated the conflict as 'blue' vs 'red'.
What happens IN America will affect what happens OUTSIDE America.
There are people on both right and left who know what is going on with this neo-imperialism BS. Elite intellectuals are useless
as critics because the filtering system for elitism favors the cucks and toadies. To reach the top in any profession, one has
to suck up to Zionists, denounce Russia, worship homos, and denounce any form of white agency as 'white supremacism'.
... ... ...
How can the elite power be challenged by non-elites? Is there some way? A new way to use the internet? Maybe. That must be
why the Platforms are shutting down so many alternative voices.
And how can masses of Trumptards and Anti-Trump resistance be convinced that the real power is not with Trump or any president
but with the Deep State that colludes with Big Media and Big donors?
So many Trumptards think all is fine because Trump is president. Likewise, so many progs paid no attention as long as Obama
was president even though Obama proved to be a war criminal.
US is now a silly nation where progs are totally incensed over 'gay cakes'. With dummy populists who think in terms of flag
and guns and idiot decadent proggists who think in terms of 'muh gender' and 'white privilege', a true challenge to sick elite
power is impossible.
We need more on the right to call out on Trump, and we need more on the left to call out on likes of Obama and Hillary. And
both sides need to focus on the Power above Trump-Hillary-Obama. But they are too childish to see anything cuz for most of them,
it's either 'muh guns' or 'muh gender'.
Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations,
good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that
battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action.
Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely
amazing, think of it –
It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we
may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American
victory as well as a Soviet one." (c)
Calvin Coolidge referred to Japan as America's natural friend. Were the economic sanctions imposed because of Japanese expansion
in China, Indochina and the Dutch East Indies really necessary? How important was it to Mr. and Mrs. Average American that China
be governed by Communists, warlords and corrupt nationalists, that Indochina be governed by French colonialists, and the Dutch
East Indies be governed by Dutch colonialists, than by Japanese imperalists? Pat Buchanan has called WWII in Europe the unnecessary
war; I think the truly unnecessary WWII conflict was in the Pacific.
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!
This is a good and succinct formation of neocon foreign policy. Bravo Saker !
Notable quotes:
"... We can buy anybody; Those we cannot buy, we bully; Those we cannot bully we kill; Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do ..."
In the US government work is for second and third raters; the smart people go elsewhere. This
is why government 'elites' are so mediocre and why so-called 'neo-cons' always seem to get
the upper hand.
We can buy anybody; Those we cannot buy, we bully; Those we cannot bully we kill;
Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do
This has been the US's winning strategy for the last 119 years now and has been refined
through practice. If it continues to work it'll continue to be used.
I think that nobody knows for sure what the North Koreans will do if attacked, b
Anybody under the age of 70 in DPRK has grown up in an Asiatic leadership-worship
semi-religion with their calendar starting from the birth of Kim Il Sung in 1912. It's more
than just a run-of-the-mill 'authoritarian regime' that westerners are used to. Westerners
can't, apparently, wrap their minds around this.
Most discussions regarding such issues as Afghanistan and Syria usually center around
probable costs, US casualties, chances of success, etc. Very rarely in any discussion does
one see any American expressing any concern whatsoever for the local people underneath the
bombs and schemes. The US is responsible for the death and immiseration of millions of people
yet hardly one in twenty, one in a hundred, evinces any concern about that at all. America, a
land of moral defectives.
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal
(that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a
long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this,
but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory
options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a
unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold
something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the
US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and
there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.
Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in
2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the
same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big
difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in
Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under
attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US
do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?
The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an
excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its
adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the
F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if
the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a
clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is
at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.
Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real
electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this
means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all
other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare,
passive engagement, etc.).
This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that
the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and
that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies
will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely
irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a
catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians
will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of
it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US
shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent
commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?
What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship
between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and
stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of
virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is
exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already!
Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo)
strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended
town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming,
re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the
Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at
this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the
Neocon point of view:
Possible outcomes
US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win
Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win
Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes
A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War
v2 in Europe.
The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is
the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very
little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.
Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the
Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already.
Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of
view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any
category.
The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were
not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be
busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying
again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.
Hunt's Deathbed Confession
Reveals JFK Killers
The Last Confession Of E. Howard Hunt -
US government/CIA team murdered JFK
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
4-4-7
The April 5 issue of Rolling Stone features the deathbed confession of CIA operative and key Bay of Pigs/Watergate/Nixon administration
figure E. Howard Hunt,
The Last Confession
of E. Howard Hunt by Erik Hedegaard. This piece is significant not only for its exploration of Hunt, but for breakthrough information
that appears to thoroughly corroborate the work of key John F. Kennedy assassination researchers and historians.
Who killed JFK?
According to Hunt's confession, which was taken by his son, St. John ("Saint") Hunt, over the course of many personal and carefully
planned father-son meetings, the following individuals were among the key participants:
Lyndon B. Johnson: LBJ, whose own career was assisted by JFK nemesis J. Edgar Hoover (FBI), gave the orders to a CIA-led hit team,
and helped guide the Warren Commission/lone gunman cover-up.
Cord Meyer: CIA agent, architect of the Operation Mockingbird disinformation apparatus, and husband of Mary Meyer (who had an
affair with JFK).
David Atlee Philips: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Recruited William Harvey (CIA) and Cuban exile militant Antonio Veciana.
William Harvey: CIA and Bay of Pigs veteran. Connected to Mafia figures Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana.
Antonio Veciana: Cuban exile, founder of CIA-backed Alpha 66.
Frank Sturgis: CIA operative, mercenary, Bay of Pigs veteran, and later Watergate figure.
David Morales: CIA hit man, Bay of Pigs veteran. Morales was also a figure involved with the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
Lucien Sarti: Corsican assassin and drug trafficker, possible "French gunman," Grassy Knoll (second) shooter.
Would Hunt continue to tell lies on his deathbed? Perhaps. Would Hunt tell a final tall story or two, to protect himself, or perhaps
deal one final slap in the face to the US government (which made him a fall guy for Watergate)? Yes. Would Hunt hide the involvement
of certain individuals to whom he remained loyal, including people who are still alive? Certainly. Anything from an operative like
Hunt can only be accepted with caution and healthy skepticism.
Nevertheless, Hunt's scenario has the ring of truth.
Each of the named names are well-known CIA and CIA-linked players exposed by many researchers and historians who have detailed
the enduring connection from the Bay of Pigs and the Dallas hit to Watergate and Iran-Contra.
The Hunt confession vindicates generations of historians, researchers and whistleblowers who have given their lives and careers
to expose the truth about Dealey Plaza. While there are too many to name, they include, but are not limited to (and in no particular
order): Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, Josiah Thompson, Carl Oglesby, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Summers, Robert Groden,
Victor Marchetti, David Lifton, Harrison Livingstone, Michael Canfield, A.J. Weberman, Sylvia Meagher, William Turner, Jim Marrs,
Pete Brewton, John Newman, Philip Melanson, Hal Verb, Mae Brussell, Harold Weisberg, Oliver Stone, Mike Ruppert and Dan Hopsicker,
Jim diEugenio and Linda Pease.
Meanwhile, the criminal deceptions of the US government and its corporate media, the Warren Commission, and the dirty work of
cover-up specialists such as Gerald Posner and Mark Fuhrman, and the legions of JFK assassination revisionist/theorists, deserve
a final rebuke, and eternal scorn.
Highlighting Hunt's role
Although the Rolling Stone piece does not address it, the Hunt confession directly corroborates two classic investigations that
previously exposed the role of Hunt. They are Mark Lane's Plausible Denial and Michael Canfield/A.J. Weberman's Coup D'Etat in America.
Lane's book details how he took Hunt to court, and won a libel suit, essentially proving that the CIA murdered JFK, and that Hunt
lied about his whereabouts. The investigation of Canfield and Weberman identified Hunt and Frank Sturgis as two of the three "tramps"
arrested at Dealey Plaza.
Time has only made these investigations more relevant. More than ever, their books, and those of the JFK historians and researchers
above listed, deserve to be found, read and studied.
Hunt to Nixon to Bush
The Rolling Stone piece fails to go after the roles of Richard Nixon and George Herbert Walker Bush. But the Hunt confession,
if accurate, leads directly to them, to their lifelong associates, and all the way to the present George W. Bush administration.
The Dallas-Watergate-Iran-Contra connection has been thoroughly documented by the key JFK researchers, and in particular, in the
work of Peter Dale Scott, one of the very first to show the deep political continuity across three decades. Daniel Hopsicker's Barry
and the Boys goes into even more detail on the players.
Consider the career of George H.W. Bush. He was a Texas oilman (Zapata Oil) and a CIA operative, involved with the Bay of Pigs.
Bush's name was found in the papers of George DeMohrenschildt, one of Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA handlers. As documented by Pete Brewton,
author of The Mafia, the CIA and George Bush, Bush was deeply connected with a small circle of Texas elites tied to the CIA and the
Mafia, as well as the Florida-based CIA/anti-Casto Cuban exile/ Mafia milieu As Richard Nixon's hand-picked Republican National Committee
chairman, and later as CIA director, Bush constantly covered-up and stonewalled for his boss about Watergate, which itself (by the
admission of Frank Sturgis and others) was a cover-up of the JFK assassination.
Tracking any of the individual CIA operatives involved with the Bay of Pigs, it is impossible to ignore or deny direct connections
to George H.W. Bush and his crime family, across the Kennedy assassinations, covert operations in Indochina and, later, Latin America.
Beyond any reasonable doubt, the US government murdered John F. Kennedy. There are people still alive today who were involved
directly and indirectly implicated. Some are probably even serving in positions of high influence. Some still have never been identified
or touched.
All of these individuals still need to be pursued, exposed, and brought to justice.
If we go by their rhetoric, the Neocons have all the following countries in their
sights:
Afghanistan (massive surge already promised) Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA
attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria) Russia (disconnecting from SWIFT;
stealing Russian assets in the US; attack on Russian forces in Syria) Iran (renege on nuclear
deal, attack Iranian forces in Syria) The Donbass (support for a full scale Ukronazi attack
against Novorussia) DPRK (direct and overt military aggression; aerial and naval blockade)
Venezuela (military intervention "in defense of democracy, human rights, freedom and
civilization")
Why? Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
We can buy anybody
Those
we cannot buy, we bully
Those we cannot bully we kill
Nothing can happen to us, we live in
total impunity not matter what we do
Besides people with intelligence there is another type of person who has completely
disappeared from the US national security establishment: someone with honor/courage/integrity.
Let's take a perfect example: Tillerson.
There is no way we can make the argument that Tillerson is an idiot. The man has proven many
times over that he is intelligent and quite talented. And yet, he is Nikki Haley's doormat.
Nikki Haley – there is the real imbecile! But not Tillerson. Yet Tillerson lacks the
basic honor/courage/integrity to demand that this terminal imbecile be immediately fired or, if
that does not happen, to leave and slam the door really loud. Nope, the man just sits there and
takes humiliation after humiliation. Oh sure, he will probably resign soon, but when his
resignation comes it will have no value, it will be a non-event, just the sad and pathetic
conclusion to a completely failed stint as Secretary of State.
The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to
resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at
least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces
are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has
the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.
E. Howard Hunt, a cold warrior
for the Central Intelligence Agency who left the spy service in disillusionment, joined the Nixon White House as a
secret agent and bungled the break-in at the Watergate that brought the president down in disgrace, died Tuesday in
Miami. He was 88.
His death, at North Shore
Medical Center, was caused by pneumonia, said his wife, Laura.
"This fellow Hunt," President
Richard M. Nixon muttered a few days after the June 1972 break-in, "he knows too damn much."
That was Howard Hunt's burden:
he was entrusted with too many secret missions. His career at the C.I.A. was destroyed by the disastrous invasion of
Cuba at the Bay of Pigs in 1961, and his time as Nixon's master of dirty tricks ended with his arrest in the
Watergate case. He served 33 months in prison for burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping and emerged a broken man.
"I am crushed by the failure
of my government to protect me and my family as in the past it has always done for its clandestine agents," Mr. Hunt
told the Senate committee investigating the Watergate affair in 1973, when he faced a provisional prison sentence of
35 years. "I cannot escape feeling that the country I have served for my entire life and which directed me to carry
out the Watergate entry is punishing me for doing the very things it trained and directed me to do."
He was
a high-spirited 30-year-old novelist who aspired to wealth and power when he joined the C.I.A. in 1949. He set out to
live the life he had imagined for himself, a glamorous career as a spy. But Mr. Hunt was never much of a spy. He did
not conduct classic espionage operations in order to gather information. His field was political warfare: dirty
tricks, sabotage and propaganda.
When he
left the C.I.A. in 1970 after a decidedly checkered career, he had become a world-weary cynic. Trading on the thin
veneer of a reputation in the clandestine service, he won a job as a $100-a-day "security consultant" at the Nixon
White House in 1971.
In that role, he conducted
break-ins and burglaries in the name of national security. He drew no distinction between orchestrating a black-bag
job at a foreign embassy in Mexico City and wiretapping the Democratic National Committee's headquarters at the
Watergate complex. He recognized no lawful limit on presidential power, convinced that "when the president does it,"
as Nixon once said, "that means it is not illegal." Mr. Hunt and the nation found out otherwise.
Mr. Hunt was intelligent,
erudite, suave and loyal to his friends. But the record shows that he mishandled many of the tasks he received from
the C.I.A. and the White House. He was "totally self-absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody
around him," Samuel F. Hart, a retired United States ambassador who first met him in Uruguay in the 1950s, said in a
State Department oral history.
"As far as I could tell,
Howard went from one disaster to another," Mr. Hart said, "until he hit Watergate."
Everette Howard Hunt Jr. was
born in Hamburg, N.Y., on Oct. 9, 1918, the son of a lawyer and a classically trained pianist who played church
organ. He graduated from Brown University in June 1940 and entered the United States Naval Academy as a midshipman in
February 1941.
He worked as a wartime
intelligence officer in China, a postwar spokesman for the Marshall Plan in Paris and a screenwriter in Hollywood.
Warner Brothers had just bought his fourth novel, "Bimini Run," a thriller set in the Caribbean, when he joined the
fledgling C.I.A. in April 1949.
Mr. Hunt was immediately
assigned to train C.I.A. recruits in political and psychological warfare, fields in which he was a rank amateur, like
most of his colleagues. He moved to Mexico City, where he became chief of station in 1950. He brought along another
rookie C.I.A. officer, William F. Buckley Jr., later a prominent conservative author and publisher, who became
godfather and guardian to the four children of Mr. Hunt and his wife, the former Dorothy L. Wetzel.
Photo
E. Howard Hunt in 1973.
Credit
Mike Lien/The New York
Times
In 1954, Mr. Hunt helped plan
the covert operation that overthrew the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. "What we wanted to do was to
have a terror campaign," Mr. Hunt said in a CNN documentary on the cold war, "to terrify Arbenz particularly, to
terrify his troops." Though the operation succeeded, it ushered in 40 years of military repression in Guatemala.
By the
time of the coup, Mr. Hunt had been removed from responsibility. He moved on to uneventful stints in Japan and
Uruguay. Not until 1960 was Mr. Hunt involved in an operation that changed history.
The C.I.A. had received orders
from both President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his successor, President John F. Kennedy, to alter or abolish the
revolutionary government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Mr. Hunt's assignment was to create a provisional Cuban government
that would be ready to take power once the C.I.A.'s cadre of Cuban shock troops invaded the island. He fared no
better than the paramilitary planners who had vowed to defeat Mr. Castro's 60,000-man army with a 1,500-strong
brigade.
The careers of the American
intelligence officers who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs debacle in April 1961 were damaged or destroyed, as
was the C.I.A.'s reputation for derring-do. Mr. Hunt spent most of the 1960s carrying out desultory propaganda tasks
at the agency, among them running news services and subsidizing books that fell stillborn from the press.
He funneled his talent into
writing paperback spy novels. His works followed a formula of sex and intrigue but offered flashes of insight. "We
become lawless in a struggle for the rule of law -- semi-outlaws who risk their lives to put down the savagery of
others," says the author's alter ego, Peter Ward, in the novel "Hazardous Duty."
He retired from the C.I.A. in
1970 and secured a job with an agency-connected public relations firm in Washington. Then, a year later, came a call
from the White House. A fellow Brown alumnus, Charles W. Colson, special counsel to President Nixon, hired Mr. Hunt
to carry out acts of political warfare. Within weeks, Mr. Hunt was in charge of a subterranean department of dirty
tricks.
He went back to C.I.A.
headquarters, requesting false identification, a red wig, a voice-altering device and a tiny camera. He then
burglarized the Beverly Hills office of a psychiatrist treating Dr. Daniel J. Ellsberg, a former national-security
aide who had leaked a copy of the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War, to The New York Times.
Mr. Hunt was looking for information to discredit Mr. Ellsberg. When the break-in became public knowledge two years
later, the federal case against Mr. Ellsberg on charges of leaking classified information was dismissed.
Mr. Hunt, in league with
another recently retired C.I.A. officer and four Cuban Bay of Pigs veterans, then led a break-in at the offices of
the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex to bug the telephone lines. The job was botched, and the
team went in again to remove the taps. The burglars were arrested on the night of June 17, 1972. One had Mr. Hunt's
name and a White House telephone number in his address book, a classic failure of espionage tradecraft that proved
the first thread of the web that ensnarled the president.
The
final blow that drove Nixon from office was one of the secret White House recordings he made -- the "smoking gun" tape
-- in which he vowed to order the C.I.A. to shut down the federal investigation of the Watergate break-in on spurious
national-security grounds. By the time Nixon resigned in August 1974, Mr. Hunt was a federal prisoner.
His life was in ruins: his
wife had been killed in a plane crash in 1972, his legal fees approached $1 million, he had suffered a stroke, and
whatever illusions he once had that his government would protect him were shattered. Standing before the judge who
imprisoned him, he said he was "alone, nearly friendless, ridiculed, disgraced, destroyed as a man."
Freed from prison just before
his 60th birthday, Mr. Hunt moved to Miami, where he met and married his second wife, Laura, a schoolteacher, and
started a second family. Besides his wife, he is survived by the two daughters and two sons from his first marriage:
Lisa Hunt of Las Vegas, Kevan Hunt Spence of Pioneer, Calif., Howard St. John Hunt of Eureka, Calif., and David Hunt
of Los Angeles; two children from his second marriage, Austin and Hollis, both of Miami; seven grandchildren; and
three great-grandchildren.
Mr. Hunt's last book,
"American Spy: My Secret History in the C.I.A., Watergate and Beyond," written with Greg Aunapu, is to be published
on March 16 with a foreword by his old friend William F. Buckley Jr.
Late in life, he said he had no
regrets, beyond the Bay of Pigs.
According to Buckley's son, Christopher, Hunt informed Buckley that, were he to die, Buckley
would be contacted by a person he did not know who had a key to a safe deposit box, which the
two of them would open together. When Christopher asked his father what the box might have
contained, Buckley replied, "I don't know exactly, but it could theoretically involve
information that could lead to the impeachment of the president of the United States." He felt
bound to keep confidential what he knew.
H oward Hunt and Frank Sturgis became notorious in 1972 with the start of the Watergate
scandal. Both men plead guilty on a variety of charges in January of 1973.
Frank Sturgis was arrested by police at the Democratic party headquarters on the sixth floor
of Watergate. He was found with four other men, wearing rubber surgical gloves, unarmed, and
carrying extensive photographic equipment and electronic surveillance devices. He was
officially charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other
conversations. Sturgis was also apart of the Miami Cuban exile community and involved in
various "adventures" relating to Cuba which he believed were organized and financed by the
CIA.
E. Howard Hunt was one of the "plumbers" and a former White House aid during the Watergate
scandal. He was directly linked to Sturgis and the other four men that broke into Watergate. He
was charged with burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. He served 33 months. Hunt was also a
former employee of the CIA, serving from 1949-1970. He typically performed work relating to
propaganda operations in foreign countries.
To say this punched all kinds of buttons among JFK conspiracy theorists would be an
understatement.
In no time flat the theorists concluded that Hunt and Sturgis were involved in the death of
JFK. It was claimed that they were two of the three tramps photographed on the day of the
assassination. By 1974, when the Rockefeller
Commission was established to investigate the domestic activities of the CIA, Hunt and
Sturgis were chief suspects in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The following section from
the Report to the President by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United
States outlines the Commission's conclusions.
... ... ...
B. The Theory That the CIA Had Relationships With Lee Harvey Oswald and
Jack Ruby The second theory advanced in support of allegations of CIA participation in the
assassination of President Kennedy is that various links existed between the CIA, Oswald and
Ruby. Lee Harvey Oswald was found by the Warren Commission to be the person who assassinated
the President. Jack Ruby shot and killed Oswald two days after the President's assassination.
There is no credible evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was ever employed
by the CIA or ever acted for the CIA in any capacity whatever, either directly or
indirectly.
Testimony was offered purporting to show CIA relationships with Oswald and Ruby. It was
stated, for example, the E. Howard Hunt, as an employee of the CIA, engaged in political
activity with elements of the anti-Castro Cuban community in the United States on behalf of the
CIA prior to the Bay of Pigs operation in April 1961. In connection with those duties, it was
further alleged that Hunt was instrumental in organizing the Cuban Revolutionary Council and
that the Cuban Revolutionary Council had an office in New Orleans. Finally, it was claimed that
Lee Harvey Oswald lived in New Orleans from April to September 1963, and that a pamphlet
prepared and distributed by Oswald on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee during that
period indicated that the office of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was situated in building
which was also the address of the New Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
(4)
It was therefore implied that Hunt could have had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in
New Orleans during the spring or summer of 1963. No evidence was presented that Hunt ever met
Oswald, or that he was ever in New Orleans in 1963, or that he had any contact with any New
Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
Hunt's employment record with the CIA indicated that he had no duties involving contacts
with Cuban exile elements or organizations inside or outside the United States after the early
months of 1961. This was more that two years before Oswald went to New Orleans in April 1963
and more than a year before Oswald returned to the United States from the Soviet Union, where
he had lived for almost three years.
An example of the testimony relating to an alleged relationship between the CIA and Jack
Ruby consisted of a statement that Frank Sturgis was engaged in a series of revolutionary
activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's and that the CIA
also sponsored and organized anti-Castro activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in
1959 and the early 1960's.
It was further stated that someone once reported to the FBI that Jack Ruby had engaged in
supplying arms to persons in Cuba in the early 1950's in association with a former Cuban
President, Carlos Prio, and that Frank Sturgis also had connections with Carlos Prio during the
1950's and 1960's.
In addition, it was alleged that Frank Sturgis was at one time (before he escaped from Cuba
in June 1959) a director of gambling and gaming establishments in Havana for the Castro
government, and that in August or September, 1959, Jack Ruby made a trip to Havana at the
invitation of a friend who had interests in gambling establishments in Cuba and the United
States.
Moreover, both Sturgis and Ruby were alleged to have had connections with underground
figures who had interests in the United States and Cuba.
From this group of allegations, the witness inferred that Sturgis and Ruby could have
met and known each other--although no actual evidence was presented to show that Ruby or
Sturgis ever met each other.
Even if the individual items contained in the foregoing recitations were assumed to be true,
it was concluded that the inferences drawn must be considered farfetched speculation insofar as
they purport to show a connection between the CIA and either Oswald or Ruby.
Even in absence of denials by living persons that such a connection existed, no weight could
be assigned to such testimony. Moreover, Sturgis was never an employee or agent of the CIA.
A witness, a telephone caller, and a mail correspondent tendered additional information of
the same nature. None of it was more than a strained effort to draw inferences of conspiracy
from the facts which would not fairly support the inferences. A CIA involvement in the
assassination was implied by the witness, for example, from the fact that the Mayor of Dallas
at that time was a brother of a CIA official who had been involved in the planning of the Bay
of Pigs operation in Cuba several years previously, and from the fact that President Kennedy
reportedly blamed the CIA for the Bay of Pigs failure.
The same witness testified that E. Howard Hunt was Acting Chief of a CIA station in Mexico
City in 1963, implying that he could have had contact with Oswald when Oswald visited
Mexico City in September 1963. Hunt's service in Mexico City, however, was twelve years
earlier--in 1950 and 1951--and his only other CIA duty in Mexico covered only a few weeks in
1960. At no time was he ever the Chief, or Acting Chief, of a CIA station in Mexico City.
Hunt and Sturgis categorically denied that they had ever met or known Oswald or Ruby. They
further denied that they ever had any connection whatever with either Oswald or Ruby.
Conclusions
Numerous allegations have been made that the CIA participated in the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy. The Commission staff investigated these allegations. On the basis of
the staff's investigation, the Commission concluded there was no credible evidence of any CIA
involvement.
Confession of Howard HuntLegendary
CIA spy and convicted Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.
Before his death in January 2007, CIA master spy and convicted Watergate conspirator Howard
Hunt confessed to being peripherally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and
named several other participants.
In notes and conversations with his son Saint John, and in an audiotape he created in 2004 to be played
after his death, Hunt described being invited into the "big event" at a Miami safehouse in
1963. Others named in the plot:
Frank Sturgis , an anti-Castro paramilitary closely associated with Hunt. Sturgis
was one of the Watergate burglars.
David Morales , Chief of Operations at the CIA's JMWAVE station in Miami. Morales
himself told a few close associates of his involvement.
David Phillips , CIA propaganda specialist and later Chief of Western Hemisphere
Division. Phillips was assigned to Mexico City during the mysterious trip of Lee Harvey
Oswald, or someone using his name, to that city in the fall of 1963.
Antonio Veciana , Cuban exile leader of Alpha 66. Veciana told the HSCA that a
"Maurice Bishop," thought by many to be Phillips, pointed out Lee Harvey Oswald to him.
William Harvey , a CIA officer who ran the ZR/RIFLE "executive action" program.
Harvey fell out of favor with the Kennedys when he sent sabotage teams into Cuba during the
1962 Missile Crisis.
Cord Meyer , a high-level CIA officer whose ex-wife Mary Meyer was having an
affair with JFK.
French Gunman Grassy Knoll. Hunt's chart included an unnamed French hit man on the
infamous grassy knoll.
Lyndon Johnson , Vice-President.
Hunt says he declined active participation but did have a "benchwarmer" role in the plot. In
the tape excerpt made available so far, Hunt made no claims which would prove his allegations.
However, the people he names have all been suspects in the assassination for some time, and
many of them worked closely together in anti-Castro operations.
In the "smoking gun" tape which helped drive him from office, President Richard Nixon said
this of Hunt: "You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things..." He then instructed
Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman to take a message to CIA Director Richard Helms, asking Helms to
intervene in the FBI's early Watergate investigation because "the President believes that it is
going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again." In his book The Ends of Power ,
Haldeman described Helms' reaction: "Turmoil in the room. Helms gripping the arms of his chair
leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern
about the Bay of Pigs'." Haldeman came to believe that the "Bay of Pigs" referred to the
Kennedy assassination.
Hunt's story has been challenged due to its lack of corroboration, its internal
inconsistencies and Hunt's failure to provide any details from his activities in 1963 which
would support it.
Some will accept Hunt's confession as the truth. For others, Hunt's naming of LBJ at the top
of the plot will be seen as a bit of "spin" to present the assassination as a "rogue
operation," deflecting attention from higher-level sponsors within the government. For that
matter, Hunt was not necessarily in a position to know the ultimate authors of the
conspiracy.
For others, the confession will be dismissed, seen as a parting gift to a ne'er-do-well son
or perhaps a "last laugh" on America from a man who hated Kennedy with a passion.
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.
The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN,
their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that
he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine,
call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea,
maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand
NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist
attack.
Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too
(picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to
wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.
All signs that the citizens of the imperial court have poisoned themselves with their own
propaganda. Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for
the rubes. An exceedingly dangerous condition.
I was surprised neither China or Russia vetoed the recent UN sanctions on North Korea. I
can see how the SCO countries would want to play for time, but I wonder if throwing NK to the
wolves makes war more likely rather than less so. I could see Iran interpreting it as being
on deck (next, a baseball term), and the Neocons as a green light.
And so few seem to care... It's almost as if they've been conditioned to want war.
I was dragged to the latest Star Wars movie this weekend. Explosion porn... For a story
ostensibly about sacrifice and honor, it had so many silly comic book jokes I was almost
surprised it didn't have a laugh track.
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and
states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who
"threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is
true.
If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national
security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and
ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the
legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national
security threats" as Iran and DPRK.
Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't
negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here
a sort of détente is possible.
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/
It actually appears to be from "Napalm: an American Biography" by Robert M. Neer, 2013.
The book is divided into 3 sections: Hero, Soldier, Pariah - hence the seeming title of
Soldier at the top of the page.
A Google search on "correspondent Cutforth" (including the quotation marks) returns a
slightly differently typeset book but with the same copy as b's image. The image itself is
also returned under Images for that search. So it's definitely the Napalm book.
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/
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.
The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN,
their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that
he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine,
call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea,
maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand
NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist
attack.
Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too
(picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to
wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and
states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who
"threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is
true.
If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national
security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and
ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the
legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national
security threats" as Iran and DPRK.
Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't
negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here
a sort of détente is possible.
"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the
rubes."
Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and
foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where
folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.
The Islamic State is a shadow of its former self. In 2014, the extremist group seemed to
make substantial inroads in achieving its stated goal of a caliphate. It boasted tens of
thousands of fighters and territorial control over an area roughly the size of South Korea. By
almost every metric, Islamic State has collapsed in its Syria stronghold, as well as in
Iraq.
The rollback of Islamic State must come as a shock to the chorus of journalists and analysts
who spent years insisting that such progress would never happen without toppling the regime of
Bashar Assad -- which is, of course, still standing. A cavalcade of opinion makers long averred
that Islamic State would thrive in Syria so long as Assad ruled because the Syrian Arab Army
was part of the same disease.
John Bolton, former United Nations ambassador under George W. Bush, insisted in the New York
Times that "defeating the Islamic State" is "neither feasible nor desirable" if Assad remains
in power. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham asserted
that "defeating Islamic State also requires defeating Bashar Assad." Kenneth Pollack of the
Brookings Institution prescribed a policy of "building a new Syrian opposition army capable of
defeating both President Bashar al-Assad and the more militant Islamists." Similarly, Max Boot,
a contributing writer to this newspaper, argued that vanquishing Islamic State was futile
unless the U.S. also moved to depose the "Alawite regime in Damascus."
...For a while, everywhere one looked, the media was peddling the same narrative. The Daily
Beast described Islamic State fighters as "Assad's henchmen." The New York Times promoted the
idea that "Assad's forces" have been "aiding" Islamic State by "not only avoiding" the group
"but actively seeking to bolster their position." Time parroted the pro-regime-change line that
"Bashar Assad won't fight" Islamic State.
But these popular arguments were, to put it mildly, empirically challenged.
The case for regime change in Damascus was reminiscent of the one cooked up for Baghdad in
2003: Interventionists played on American fears by pretending that the strongmen were in direct
cahoots with Salafi jihadists (the ultra-conservative movement within Sunni Islam). The
evidence of Assad sponsoring Islamic State, however, was about as strong as for Saddam Hussein
sponsoring Al Qaeda.
...By now it should be obvious that the Syrian Arab Army has played a role in degrading
Islamic State in Syria -- not alone, of course, but with Russian and Iranian partners, not to
mention the impressive U.S.-led coalition. In marked contrast to pundit expectations, the
group's demise was inversely related to Assad's power. Islamic State's fortunes decreased as
his influence in the country increased.
Equally contrary to analyst predictions, the group imploded right after external support for
the "moderate" rebels dried up. The weakening of the rebels was a major setback for Islamic
State because Assad could finally focus his firepower on the group. Fewer weapon shipments into
the theater, moreover, meant fewer arms fell into the hands of Salafi jihadists.
How strange, then, that we haven't heard many pundits acknowledge their mistakes; they're
not itching to atone for having almost forced another regime-change mission based on
discredited analysis.
As in Iraq a decade earlier, regime change in Syria would have created the ultimate power
vacuum for Islamic State to flourish.
Moreover, the notion that pumping arms and fighters into Syria would mitigate the unrest is
actually the opposite of what study after study has established. The conflict literature makes
clear that external support for the opposition tends to exacerbate and extend civil wars, which
usually peter out not through power-sharing agreements among fighting equals, but when one side
-- typically, the incumbent -- achieves dominance.
...Although the Islamic State's caliphate is dead, Assad's war on terrorists in Syria is
very much alive. Let's hope future analysis of this conflict avoids the kind of anti-empirical
ideological advocacy that helped give rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq and then Islamic State in the
first place.
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively
make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "
I think you are wrong here.
Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most
neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised
(immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)
Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly
for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and
lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.
All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between
Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would
be greater ?
In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:
The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread
and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind
of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic
form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the
policies.
Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including
neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties
no longer represent the will of the people.
Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose
to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves,
their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the
$400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM,
neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military
brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.
8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national
interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure,
in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of
$40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably
double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or
with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).
"... Contrast that with our situation today. Donald Trump came to office almost entirely ignorant of statecraft. Rather than a considered worldview, he offers slogans and sound bites. As Trump approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, we can say this about U.S. foreign policy: It has ceased to exist. ..."
"... Any policy worthy of the name requires principles. Trump has none. So U.S. behavior on the world stage today consists of little more than random and often contradictory impulses. For recent examples, consider the inflammatory rhetoric directed at North Korea, stealth increases in U.S. troop contingents in Syria and Afghanistan, the inauguration of a U.S. bombing campaign in Somalia and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In each instance, the president acted without making the slightest pretense of consulting anyone outside a small circle of White House advisors. None of these decisions, to put it mildly, will Make America Great Again. ..."
"... Given the chance, any president will treat statecraft as his personal fiefdom. History shows that even a small number of senators with sufficient gumption and wit can frustrate such ambitions. This is what La Follette and Norris, Borah and Wheeler, and Fulbright did in their time. That among their successors today there appear to be none willing or able to take up their mantle is a sad testament to the state of American politics. ..."
"... is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History ..."
"... which has just been published by Random House. ..."
"... He is also editor of the book, The Short American Century ..."
"... Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) ; Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War , The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War , The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (American Empire Project) , ..."
"... The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II . ..."
The USA foreign policy remain unchanged. It is a neocon foreign policy. Trump just does not
matter. He just added a spicy flavor of reckless adventurism to it.
How senators of both parties have made themselves complicit in the unfolding folly of Trump's
foreign policy by Andrew Bacevich Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., center, smiles as he takes an elevator after meeting with
President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans on Nov. 28 in Washington, DC. (Photo: Jacquelyn
Martin / Associated Press) Where is J. William Fulbright when we need him? Or if not
Fulbright, perhaps Robert M. La Follette or George W. Norris. Personally, I'd even settle for
William Borah or Burton K. Wheeler.
During the 20th century, each of these now largely forgotten barons of the U.S. Senate
served the nation with distinction. Their chief contribution? On matters related to war and
peace, they declined to kowtow to whoever happened to occupy the office of commander in
chief. On issues involving the safety and security of the American people, they challenged
presidents, insisting that the Congress should play a central role in formulating basic
policy. With the floor of the Senate as their bully pulpit, they questioned, provoked and
thereby captured public attention.
"The Senate's duty is clear -- to spell out the implications of Trump's mishandling of
U.S. foreign policy before the damage becomes irreversible."
A century ago, La Follette of Wisconsin and Norris of Nebraska, both progressive
Republicans, spoke eloquently and at length in opposition to President Woodrow Wilson's
insistence that the United States should go to war with Germany. Following the World War I
armistice, Borah, a Republican from Idaho, emerged as an uncompromising critic of the
Versailles Treaty that Wilson negotiated in Paris. During the late 1930s, having concluded
that U.S. participation in that earlier European war had been a huge error, Borah and
Wheeler, a Democrat from Montana, sought to prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from
repeating Wilson's mistakes. Three decades later, Fulbright, a Democrat from Arkansas and the
influential chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, became a thorn in Lyndon B.
Johnson's side as a sharp critic of the Vietnam War.
In opposing presidents whom they saw as too eager to wage war or too certain that they
alone understood the prerequisites of peace, these senators were not necessarily correct in
their judgments. Yet by drawing widespread public attention to foreign policy issues of
first-order importance, they obliged their adversaries in the White House to make their case
to the American people.
Whatever the issue -- sending Americans to fight on the Western Front, joining the League
of Nations, rescuing Great Britain from Hitler or defending South Vietnam -- the back and
forth between presidents and prominent Senate critics provided a means of vetting
assumptions, assessing potential risks and debating possible consequences. In each instance,
American citizens gained a clearer picture of what their president was intent on doing and
why. The president became accountable.
Contrast that with our situation today. Donald Trump came to office almost entirely
ignorant of statecraft. Rather than a considered worldview, he offers slogans and sound
bites. As Trump approaches the first anniversary of his inauguration, we can say this about
U.S. foreign policy: It has ceased to exist.
Any policy worthy of the name requires principles. Trump has none. So U.S. behavior on
the world stage today consists of little more than random and often contradictory impulses.
For recent examples, consider the inflammatory rhetoric directed at North Korea, stealth
increases in U.S. troop contingents in Syria and Afghanistan, the inauguration of a U.S.
bombing campaign in Somalia and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In each
instance, the president acted without making the slightest pretense of consulting anyone
outside a small circle of White House advisors. None of these decisions, to put it mildly,
will Make America Great Again.
As American statecraft succumbs to incoherence, where is the Senate? Somewhere between
missing in action and too preoccupied with partisan and parochial considerations to take
notice. As a body, the Senate has done nothing to restrain Trump or to enlighten the American
people regarding the erratic course on which the president has embarked. Occasional
complaints registered by a handful of senators, such as the ailing John McCain, amount to
little more than catcalls from the bleachers. In effect, senators of both parties have made
themselves complicit in the unfolding folly.
The duty of the Senate is clear -- to spell out the implications of Trump's mishandling of
U.S. foreign policy before the damage that he is inflicting becomes irreversible.
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
'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
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.
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
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years,
we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with
a stronger, more realistic outlook.
Nope.
In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics
(if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives
are former followers of Trotsky
communism -- not very conservative, huh?)
For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a
leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people
understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi
writes :
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public,
weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently
said :
Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to
tame them and make them safe for liberalism."
So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar
to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons
than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations
richer and expand the American empire.
There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the
Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more
nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military
conquest and empire.
If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention
of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards
war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.
Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very
old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it
or not, it is still an iron fist.
A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics,
Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the
left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who
are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics
to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability,
indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance,
we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.
Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution
or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.
Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of
the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture
though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.
Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write!
I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short
for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate
bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying
the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.
The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since
2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political
ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.
Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political
ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population
wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate
conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons
and NeoCons.
When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue
to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue
making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans
like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors
and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.
Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting
the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need
more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors,
political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about
political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on
speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate
conservative.
There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and
Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the
wider political landscape of Europe.
Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of
a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream
conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate
also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc
in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President
Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine
if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political
compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of
political ideologies.
Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your
own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning
more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type
of leadership, and government they actually want....
Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What
do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government
you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.
This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches
of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might
add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the
record.
You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago
School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization"
of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally
unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They
are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.
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.
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.
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
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
"... I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2 vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party. ..."
"... Let me be the dink who reminds you: Peak Oil ..."
"... As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well. ..."
"... EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone? ..."
"... "In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites ..."
"... That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden? ..."
"... No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American people, but to the profits and plans of elites. ..."
"... Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high before high-volume production becomes cost-effective. ..."
"... Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start. ..."
"... One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he (and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom, some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin. ..."
Trump won't get dragged into war, although his conniving nature may try to make it look like
that if it serves some ulterior motive of his. Trump will race on his own volition (not get
dragged by others) to war because he's already been chomping at the bit for war as evident in
how he's been baiting Iran and N. Korea alike, just as Bush baited Saddam Huessein, then bait
and switched Osama Bin Laden for Saddam. So if not war with one (Iran), then with the other
(N. Korea), or with both.
Why? Because like all Republican politicians, Trump's a businessman and proud of it,
(Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.) And because war is good
for American business, a lesson that was learned from WWII from which was created the
military-industrial-complex and the Permanent War Economy under which we've lived ever
since.
That bit's key to understanding the whole unwavering GOP attack on social services and
desire to deregulate and privatize everything, not because of evil "socialism" as the
Republican constituency is hypnotized with propaganda into believing, but because there's no
money to be made in government expenditures otherwise. The whole GOP agenda has been and is
about public expense for private gain. All the blather about shrinking the government is
smokescreen. The real agenda is about directing all government spending towards private
contractors with none wasted on things like social services, medicare, or Social
Security.
Economic aspects of politics can't be ignored and separated from social aspects of
politics which is how conservatism in America has helped create the current political mess,
by turning a blind eye and dittohead to economic matters in order to push the chosen,
preferred social agenda.
As Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." So since the US is ruled by money
of markets, there can be no getting one's moral back up and all Jesus over social immorality,
only to ignore the immorality of the marketplace and thereby fail to push for a moral economy
along with a moral society. Such misidentification of the problem will only result in missing
the mark, in inappropriate rather than on the mark effective solutions to problems.
Trump is simply a braggart who likes to exaggerate by talking in superlatives, so it's
fitting that Trump ran on the GOP ticket, because he's but another child of the Father of
Lies, who superlatively lies about his wealth being billions instead of millions to swell his
pride in being a mammon worshipper, and going to war is and will be as it certainly has been
part and parcel of such hubris.
To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's elites –
think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after 9/11, except
the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they could not be
questioned. And there is the locus of the Likud Israeli party friendship with the Saudis, and
Trump is certainly nothing if not onside with his good friend, the Israeli PM.
I'd like to believe either the Repubs or Dems were the answer, except both are near unanimous
in their support for the military industrial complex and its expanding wars. Note the 98-2
vote to make Russia a permanent enemy. I believe the resistors were bipartisan, lonely as
they are in either party, in reality separate branches of an imperial War Party.
Make no mistake: if there is going to be an attack on Iran by Americans, it is not because
MbS wants it, it is because the Americans love war.
I am convinced that most (some 90%) Americans are open or closeted
Neo-cons/liberal-interventionists/war-hawks. Some are shamelessly and openly so (John
Bolton), but many are so without showing it or even being aware of it. The hawk in them is
restlessly waiting for an opening, an excuse, to come out and proclaim what they have ever
been
Bush 41 dragged us into a coalition war over Kuwait. Clinton dragged us into a coalition war
in the Balkans. Bush 43 dragged us into a war in Iraq. Obama dragged us into a secret war
when he destabilized Syria and Lybia, which unleashed ISIS. All for the right reasons, of
course (sarcasm).
You might be right, but I fail to see how that would be different than the last 30
years.
BTW, Politico has a story about how the Obama Administration shot down DEA drug trafficking
investigations of Hezbollah to support the Iran nuclear deal. I would like to read your
comments about it, particularly in light of the comments you made above about Trump.
Parents always tell kids to choose their friends carefully. With pals like Netanyahu and the
Saudi bogus "crown prince", Trump clearly didn't follow that advice.
That video looks like a Nazi's wet dream, I mean the undiluted fascistic element is
overwhelming, it's like getting a peek at an alternate dimension, not even a society, of pure
militaristic "hathos" festooned by a limitless cloud of lies.
The worst of humanity is engrafted in that video, by which, I mean the unalloyed lying
stupidity of war: imperialist expansionism, nationalist revanchism, and plutocratic
supremacism, haloed by the grey mist–the dehumanzing pixelated mist–of the most
dehumanizing endeavor man can undertake, for the most dehumanizing of modern causes:
fascistic capitalism, the kind that fueled WWII (In this latter case, under the guise of
religious supremacism or religious survivalism, but, in any case, only an obvious guise as
far as the grotesque House of Saud is characteristically concerned).
Echoing Noah above, this doesn't appear to be a production of the Saudi government, but
having a contingent of the Saudi population gung-ho for a Sunni/Shi'a Ragnarok is concerning
in itself. Both KSA and Iran will fight each other to the last Yemeni before any direct
conflict arises.
This is the scenario that should be keeping us all up at night:
Fran Macadam: To be fair, the Saudi dictators have always been best friends with America's
elites – think Bandar Bush, the grounding of all air traffic in the United States after
9/11, except the Saudi evacuation planes spiriting Saudi royals out of the country so they
could not be questioned.
It wasn't the royals -- it was the bin Laden family itself. The people who knew Osama
best. I never understood why we didn't insists that, with all airplanes grounded, they had to
have a US Air Force pilot -- who then would have flown them to Gitmo for a sit-down on their
newly famous relative. Instead the highest levels of government -- how high did you have to
go to get permission to fly? -- broke into their busy schedules to be briefed and let them
go.
The whole thing still stinks. We really need to have an investigation into the role of
Saudi Arabia in American foreign policy; especially the Iraq Wars.
In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela,
or anyplace crazy the better.
President Trump's new best friend, MBS, is going to get us dragged into a new war in the
region. Watch.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
ROTFLMAO!!!
If the Saudis are foolish enough to try that they will get their ass so thoroughly kicked
that "who were the Al Saud?" will a trivial pursuit question on par with "Who were the
Romanov's?" 10 years from now, and if the US is foolish enough to let them do that, watch the
Global Economy collapse as the Strait of Hormuz gets closed for a few years.
Dr Talon,
The best military in the Middle East is Hezbollah (Trained & equipped by the Iranian,
blooded and forged by the Israelis) the only thing they don't have is an air force. Let them
have a half way decent air wing, and they would be on par or better than the USMC.
Duke Leto,
All that beautiful hardware has to be put to good use, after all if you don't use it you
can't replace it. Think of all that beautiful money to be made in hardware replacement
Noah,
Trump also declined to support Kurdish independence, which the Israeli right supports
and would have undermined Iran (which has a restive Kurdish minority) and Iran ally
Iraq.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan, in that Turkey has the
largest Kurdish minority population of all the Middle Eastern countries (about 20% of
population) and the largest military in the Middle East. Not a good idea, especially if you
don't want them to become buddy buddy with their eastern neighbor.
Oh, did I mention that Saudi Arabia has a substantial Shiite minority (10 to 15% of the
population) who isn't exactly thrilled to live under Wahhabi rule.
Watching the Saudis (a country that has to import plumbers from South Asia because it's
below the dignity of the locals to be plumbers) getting their asses handed to them, watching
the Dumpster's poll rating jump up to the 80% mark before cratering down to 15%, watching the
Trump recession that would follow would almost be worth it if I didn't have to suffer the
consequences of "Real American's(TM)" idiocy. It would be almost as much fun as watching
Brexit.
And President Ted Cruz or Clinton would be different how?
It's a pretty safe assumption that a President Clinton would work to uphold the treaty her
predecessor signed with Iran. Cruz, like the rest of the GOP hawks, would probably (like
Trump) be actively working to undermine it and provoke Iran. She'd want more money for social
and infrastrucure spending, less for military.
Pavlos has it right. The GOP (and a lot of Democrats) think war is good for business and
are happy to funnel obscene amounts of money to the military-industrial complex under the
guise of "national security."
It depends on what you imply when saying that it has lit up Arab social media, Rod. "Damn
those Saudis are strong!" type of reaction means that social media are lit up. "LOL, what
sorry comedian a-holes those Saudis are!" type of reaction also means that social media are
lit up.
I can't decide if this truly 'government' backed or some Saudia wackos let their freak loose.
At least the wackos are going after Iran and not the US. It is probably really nothing than
an expensive Youtube comment but it does indicate that Saudia Arabia population really
desires War somewhere and somehow.
Although this is probably forgotten in 1 month, the Middle East appears to be following
similar paths as Europe in the 1900 – 1914. We have lots of secret Allies and treaties
with enormous tensions that is hungry for a battle.
The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton would probably be too hawkish for my
tastes–and certainly she wouldn't enjoy strong relations with Russia (given evidence,
in this hypothetical, that Putin was actively interfering in the election to support her
opponent)–but it wouldn't be the amateur hour that we've gotten so far with Trump.
Clinton would still have a functioning diplomatic corps, instead of sacking half the State
Department. She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter. She'd
likely be not trying to undermine the Iran deal. And she'd not be performing fellatio on the
likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and MbS, as Trump has been eagerly doing.
Really. At what point does the "as bad as Trump's foreign policy has been, Clinton wudda
been worse" refrain stop? Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since
LBJ–he only needs a Vietnam War to his name to blow past him. And he has none of
Johnson's domestic achievements.
The last time an Arab dictator tried to attack the Iranians he could only get a draw that
bankrupted him and lead, by a series of second-order consequences, to his downfall.
The Iranians had just, when they were attacked by Iraq, had thier revolution and had
liquidated thier officer corps. Think about that. Iranians as polity may, for the most part,
dislike the rule of the clerics, but they are intensely patriotic and will fight to the last
man/woman to defend the Persian homeland. Underestimate them at your peril.
When Iran's proxies in Yemen -- the Houthis -- are launching missiles at airports and the
Royal Palace, I don't think this type video is very surprising and as propaganda goes really
a big deal. It is pretty low level saber rattling if it is a Saudi Government produc, or what
you would see a million times over among Americans if it is the work of just a bunch of young
Saudi yahoos. Oh, and MSAGA -- Make Saudi Arabia Great Again!
Israel has never fought side-by-side with the US in any of the wars it has sent the us to
fight [and die for and pay for] at the instigation of the settlers/occupiers.
Since the U.S. has never fought any wars for Israel, that makes the score 0:0 then.
But her E-mails Good Thing the witch from Chappaqua isn't in the White House
What ignorant drivel. Clinton is plenty hawkish (she cheered on Trump's April missile
strike on Assad, and urged him to go much further). Moreover, as I wrote above, this video
seems to be youthful fan fiction, not carrying any Saudi government imprimatur (let alone
endorsement from Trump). Rod is speculating that the US will eventually join Saudi Arabia in
a war against Iran, but Rod is no seer, whatever his other attributes.
Supporting the Kurds would have pissed off his best buddy Erdogan
Poppycock. Trump is hardly Erdogan's poodle. Trump gave heavy armaments to the Syrian
Kurds (O had limited their support to small arms) and wants to move our embassy to Jerusalem,
both decisions angering Erdogan. Erdogan would also liked to have seen Assad deposed.
I'm not going to offer an opinion on the efficacy of Saudi Arabia's army, and neither should
you. Remember how everyone warned us about Iraq's Republican Guard?) Few of us know what
we're talking about.
On the larger point: are you all taking drugs? Some video "lights up" Arab social media
and therefore Trump is taking us to war against Iran?? What?!
(especially the Straits of Hormuz aspect. The Iranians just have to mine it so that one or
more cargo ships get holed and got to the bottom at strategic bends and nobody ain't shipping
no Saudi Oil nowhere. Have fun with $300/bbl oil economies, guys China will make out like a bandit, considering
it's now the world leader in solar power.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most folks
think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart enough to
avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of his Russia
investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When (not if)
that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both. Millions will
most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an entirely new
generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
EngineerScotty wrote: "The foreign policy of a President Hillary Clinton wouldn't be the amateur hour that
we've gotten so far with Trump" No, it would be the ruthlessly effective professionalism of the reset with Russia and the
ouster of Qaddafi. /sarc She wanted and wants Assad deposed. How well would that have gone?
She wouldn't be trading insults with foreign heads of state on Twitter
Clinton has insulted Putin any number of times on social media and in interviews. On the
Colbert program just last September, she claimed that he worked against her election because
of sexism, and claimed that he "manspread" during a meeting with her.
And she'd not be performing fellatio on the likes of Netanyaho, Ergodan, and
MbS
Netanyahu and Erdogan do not get along, so it's pretty hard to please both of them
simultaneously. Like muad'dib, Scotty has it in his head that Trump is a poodle of Erdogan,
but the latter would disagree. Heavy weapons to Syrian Kurds, Jerusalem -- Erdogan is not
fully pleased with Trump.
If Scotty thinks the Clintons are hostile to Saudi Arabia, he hasn't been paying attention
(does he ever?).
Trump is already the worst foreign policy president since LBJ -- he only needs a
Vietnam War to his name to blow past him
"In the meantime, Frack Baby Frack! The less oil we have to import from there, Venezuela, or
anyplace crazy the better." That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the American
people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
As a clever newspaper writer said about Jesse Ventura: Jesse is a lot smarter than most
folks think he is, but not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Like Jesse, Trump is smart
enough to avoid unnecessary war. However, war may just become "necessary" when the heat of
his Russia investigation becomes unbearable, and Trump needs the ultimate distraction. When
(not if) that happens, either North Korea or Iran will be in trouble -- perhaps both.
Millions will most likely die, billions of dollars will be spent, and the US will create an
entirely new generation of terrorists. This will not end well.
Except that "heat" of his investigation is almost extinguished already.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right. Trump is
a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about whether she
would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She wouldn't be
engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at leading us into
some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support. Clinton would
have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted to start.
That would be sane. But the elites have decided to export it at a cut rate, to undermine
Russia as the supplier in Europe, in order to foment regime change by crashing the Russian
economy. Why did you think we had such low fuel prices all of a sudden?
No, the fuel extracted from American soil does not accrue to the benefit of the
American people, but to the profits and plans of elites.
Unless the "elites" you are talking about are the Saudis–who are well-known for
flooding the market with cheap crude periodically to undercut the competition (they can still
produce oil for far less than anywhere else), and have many reasons to be suspicious of
Russia–this makes no sense.
Oil obtained by fracking is far more expensive to produce than oil obtained by simply
drilling a well in the Arabian Desert and quickly finding a gusher. The US can meet its
domestic needs, but isn't that great of a net exporter -- prices have to be sufficiently high
before high-volume production becomes cost-effective.
And if you don't think that either the Saudis or the American oil industry have the ear of
Trump, you're smokin' something.
The "elites" that oppose Trump have rather little political power at the present moment.
Don't confuse cultural elites (who don't like the Donald one bit) with the gazillionaires who
actual control the petroleum industry, and are more than happy to do business with whoever is
in charge in Washington.
Trump–ignorant and fatuous and unworldly as he may be–is an "elite" by virtue
of the office he holds. Do not forget that.
Noah and Engineer Scotty -- There is a reasonable compromise. Both of you are right.
Trump is a disaster and we know Clinton was terrible. There is no point in arguing about
whether she would be worse. I happen to think In some ways she wouldn't be as bad. She
wouldn't be engaged in stupid twitter fights with dictators. But she might be better at
leading us into some stupid war in Syria. Trump will stumble into some war with no support.
Clinton would have had lots of support for whatever mindlessly stupid bloodbath she wanted
to start.
Fair enough–though I think that Hillary's foreign policy would likely be similar to
that of her husband. Far from ideal, but not disastrous. Of course, Bill got to hold office
in a time when the Soviet Union (and its constituent parts) was in shambles, China was still
a third-world country, North Korea was no threat to anyone but South Korea, Islamic extremism
was far less of a problem, and even the Israelis and Palestinians were talking, and on
roughly equal terms. Now is a much more dangerous time.
One of my biggest concerns about Trump's foreign policy–and a major difference
from how Hillary would have governed–is his utter disdain for diplomacy. As noted, he
(and Tillerson) have been busy setting the State Department ablaze, and many, many, many
seasoned diplomats (career civil servants, not political appointees) have left Foggy Bottom,
some of their own accord, some not. Some Trump defenders claim this is part of "draining the
swamp", and many critics claim this is a purge of anyone not loyal to Trump
personally–and these two claims may be opposite sides of the same coin.
But there is something else. Trump seems to think that international diplomacy ought to be
conducted like real-estate deals: Two high-rollers (CEOs or heads of state) meet on the golf
course, hash out a deal, and the lawyers work out the details; and that having a large staff
of people trained in understanding a potentially-hostile foreign country is simply
unnecessary. In short, he acts as though he believes the entire system of international
diplomatic protocol, is a racket. Perhaps he has a point here; and perhaps he does
not–as the old saying goes, don't knock down a wall unless you know what loads it is
bearing.
But you'll notice that neither Russia, nor China, nor Israel, nor Iran, or Germany, nor
any other player on the world stage, have been engaging in similar purges of their diplomatic
services.
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one
type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely
dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:
Example 1:
North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't
even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns
out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.
We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically
advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event
of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always
hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens,
and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.
Example 2:
Commander's intent:
Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery
belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account
of course).
Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"
Phase four: Regime change.
There you go .
Example 3:
I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before
it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.
These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what
Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life"
[1] which is characterized
by a set of basic characteristics:
First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence,
when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where
in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more
akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain").
You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the
paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious
belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .
Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority,
the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case,
that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological,
hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not
something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically
declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and
other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example
#2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.
The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more
about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of "
my country, right or wrong " but goes far
beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public
opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such
imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility"
to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance
on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs
as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".
A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary
to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated
worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very
same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to
pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become
a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and
condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
A totally uncritical acceptance
of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great
example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or
the latest
hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .
The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect
example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound
belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive,
they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like
these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological
drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.
That belief is also the standard cop out in
any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .
Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial
mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with
the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans"
(example #2 is a prefect example of this).
There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already
paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about
them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might
be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience
folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other
oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:
Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological
drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated
and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will
always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with
one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.
As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans
(political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards
have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages
and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated
as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting
kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:
One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning
of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).
Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.
Consequences:
There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that
any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined
with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can
always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech
or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion
than on the actual ability to form one .
By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types")
because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always
see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always
provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.
The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to
learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.
One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little
staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's
delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I
have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were
absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It
was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly
gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion
as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained
away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory
and leave.
Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars
. And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually
win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue
that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be
convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks
bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent
the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!
We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated
(if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is
not just a case of " Fools rush
in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point
of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in
drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much
worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are
numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught
me about it!).
If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and
that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only
to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of
their own.
What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and
threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening
the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way
to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody
with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately
involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans
might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.
Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed
neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option
for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans,
remember the previous war in Korea).
But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem
The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world
is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.
This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.
This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs,
to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force
must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in
the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of
hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.
In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate
the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention
to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable
scenario (see here if that
topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans.
And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as
much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is
by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly
seeking solutions to our current predicament.
-- -- -
1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:
If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in).
We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case
the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country
that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology
on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern
degeneracy.
A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very
Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the
warfare.
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with
NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech (
it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on
the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and
Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and
like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the
tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*
Just a thought.
VicB3
*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things
along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response
of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative
view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel
before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.
His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the
U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed
with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years
.In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand
basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have
been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating
apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express
an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice.
It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything
though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre.
Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority
of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for
his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing
such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes,
look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I
just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will
just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military
and shot on TV.
All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave
it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.
Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on
intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for
the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long
enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.
I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in
that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies
that came to a bad end.
so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world
I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an
increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally
stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts.
This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater
threat for the world.
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.
Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany
all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online
conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against
our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate
actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains
from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless?
Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little
freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating
Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking
of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape
parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake.
But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting
the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.
Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid
of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.
Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.
Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better.
And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.
At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY
instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first
Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.
In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different
point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to
you at some length elsewhere.
In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets
of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.
It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.
You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with.
Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out
of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.
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?
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?
"... America has lost moral grounds. Its propaganda machine is falling apart exposing America as an international outlaw ..."
"... America is in a situation when it cannot wage an open full-scale war and it cannot negotiate anything. For example, a war with N. Korea potentially will be an extremely bloody for America with totally unpredictable consequences and, at the same time, America cannot negotiate anything since, in a case of Iran, Trump stated that he did not give a shit to any negotiated agreements. ..."
"... Trump vision of making America great is to be a greater lackey of Israel and by impoverishing the America middle class by enriching his lenders on the Wall Street. ..."
" there are many vacancies, which has opened the door to eager neoconservative-leaning
nominal Republicans to re-enter government . At the State Department Brian Hook of the
neocon John
Hay Initiative is now chief of policy planning, courtesy of Margaret Peterlin,
Tillerson's chief of staff. They have recently hired David Feith , the son of the infamous
Pentagon Office of Special Plans head Doug Feith , to head the Asia desk. And Wes Mitchell
, whose policies are largely indistinguishable from his predecessor, has replaced Victoria
Nuland as Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs . While Elliot Abrams,
Eliot Cohen, the Kagans and other prominent neocons have been blocked, second-tier
activists carrying less political baggage have quietly been brought in . "
" The unfortunate Donald Trump Administration decision to recognize Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel serves no visible American interest , in spite of what some of the
always-loyal-to-Israel punditry has been suggesting. Israel is already moving to exploit
the situation in its usual fashion . Immediately after the announcement was made, Israeli
Ambassador in Washington Ron Dermer suggested
that the decision on Jerusalem could now be extended to include other disputed areas,
most particularly Syria's Golan Heights that were occupied in 1967"
" Nothing good will come out of the Trump decision as the situation in the region is
already starting to unravel. The Turks are talking about opening an Embassy to Palestine in
East Jerusalem and the 56 other Muslim countries in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation
might follow suit."
The perfect example of the present state of American "morality". We are paying you off to
agree with us and if not we will take our ball and go home. And as for Haley's comment that
"This is what the American people want and is the right thing to do", when were the American
people ever asked and who says it is the right thing to do other than neocons?
Sanctions and Miltary intervention is the sum total of US foreign policy. Is it any wonder
that the Chinese are winning friends and making inroads around the world by engaging in quiet
diplomacy and reaching win/win investment solutions with no political demands made on the
host country.
The Trump's foreign policies are a total catastrophe:
America has lost moral grounds. Its propaganda machine is falling apart exposing
America as an international outlaw
America is in a situation when it cannot wage an open full-scale war and it cannot
negotiate anything. For example, a war with N. Korea potentially will be an extremely
bloody for America with totally unpredictable consequences and, at the same time, America
cannot negotiate anything since, in a case of Iran, Trump stated that he did not give a
shit to any negotiated agreements.
Trump vision of making America great is to be a greater lackey of Israel and by
impoverishing the America middle class by enriching his lenders on the Wall Street.
IIRC from my international affairs classes, the UN was always a rubber stamp for American
interests. Every "international" organization was like this. Now, we see the tables are
turning and we might end up ditching these organizations as the Empire no longer controls
them.
Look back at the Korean War. Originally, the loss of sovereignty was meant to be an MIC
rubber stamp, to commit the US to war while going around Congress. In other words, the UN was
the MIC's rubber stamp to approve whatever it wanted, without Congressional approval, and
without making American politicians bear the burden of guilt.
Stop right there trollie .... the ONLY outrageous challenge to US "sovereignty" is the
Zionist talmudist ethnocentric chosenites who have their "dual"-citizens
pulling the strings on US foreign policy:
"Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled "A Strategy for Israel."
Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control" even
though "the price in blood would be high." [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative,
3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper "A
Clean Break" (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for
Israel."
"January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not
Terrorism.
The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq
and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...But Bush isn't interested in terrorism...Instead, Bush
channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz... in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Rice begins noting "that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region."...Bush orders
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to
begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq's northern and southern
no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime..."Meeting
adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq...
"US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, later recalls: "From the very beginning, there
was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the
very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this
regime...officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, "Why
Saddam?" and "Why now?" Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be
accomplished. "It was all about finding a way to do it," O'Neill will explain. "That was the
tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'""
"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of
ground forces..."These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to
implement." One senior administration official says after the meeting, "The Likudniks are
really in charge now."..."
"Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter
Terrorism Evaluation Group"
"Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret
intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG -- sometimes called the
Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look
for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... George Packer will later describe their
process, writing, "Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise
was true; facts would be found to confirm it."...Critics claim that its members manipulate
and distort intelligence, "cherry-picking" bits of information that support their
preconceived conclusions... They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice
President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's
the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent."...A defense official
later adds, "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department
and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and
company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions. The
CIA is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."... For weeks, the unit will attempt to
uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith
and Wolfowitz..."
"The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG's work. "I don't
have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at
the intelligence and challenge the assessment," former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later
say. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals,
people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going
to get."..."
"Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked... In CTEG's view, policy
makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA's guarded
conclusions: "[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only -- and CIA's interpretation
ought to be ignored." Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to
ignore the intelligence community's view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies. They
also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in
Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals..."
"The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House. Lang
later tells the Washington Times: "That unit had meetings with senior White House officials
without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them. That is not legal. There has to be
oversight." According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the
White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they
disagreed with..."
For those how do not want to read the article I've linked to these quotes let me highlight
a few passages (apologies in advance as someone replied to my previous article so I could not
do it prior):
"Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled " A Strategy for Israel ."
Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy "the areas under Palestinian Authority control" even
though "the price in blood would be high." [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative,
3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper " A
Clean Break " (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for
Israel."
" January 30, 2001 : First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel,
Not Terrorism
The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on
Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...But Bush isn't interested in terrorism
...Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz... in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
Rice begins noting "that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region."...Bush
orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh
Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq's northern and
southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein
regime..."Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq ...
"US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, later recalls: "From the very beginning, there
was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go. From the
very first instance, it was about Iraq . It was about what we can do to change this
regime...officials never questioned the logic behind this policy . No one ever asked, "Why
Saddam?" and "Why now?" Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be
accomplished. " It was all about finding a way to do it ," O'Neill will explain. "That was
the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'""
"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use
of ground forces ..."These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to
implement." One senior administration official says after the meeting, "The Likudniks are
really in charge now."..."
"Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter
Terrorism Evaluation Group"
"Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret
intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG -- sometimes called the
Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look
for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda... George Packer will later describe their
process, writing, "Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise
was true; facts would be found to confirm it ."...Critics claim that its members manipulate
and distort intelligence, "cherry-picking" bits of information that support their
preconceived conclusions... They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice
President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's
the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent. "...A defense official
later adds, "There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department
and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and
company disbelieve any analysis that doesn't support their own preconceived conclusions . The
CIA is enemy territory, as far are they're concerned."... For weeks, the unit will attempt to
uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith
and Wolfowitz..."
"The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG's work. "I don't
have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at
the intelligence and challenge the assessment," former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later
say. "But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals
, people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were
going to get ."..."
"Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked... In CTEG's view, policy
makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA's guarded
conclusions: "[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only -- and CIA's interpretation
ought to be ignored." Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to
ignore the intelligence community's view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies . They
also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in
Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals..."
"The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House . Lang
later tells the Washington Times: " That unit had meetings with senior White House officials
without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them . That is not legal . There has to be
oversight." According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the
White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they
disagreed with ..."
Oh, that's right. Bill Clinton and the Democrats NEVER condoned regime change in Iraq.
Just like they NEVER proposed accepting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
The UN is Washington's most powerfull tool to keep the rest of the world in check.
And because Washington wants to preserve the global status quo (which has been constructed
to Washington's advantage), the UN is not allowed to do "anything productive".
As a Gringo, you should be damn content with the UN, because Washington's control over the
UN facilitates your luxurious Gringo-lifestyle.
But you can't have it all: AND a luxurious Gringo-lifestyle AND the applause of the rest
of the world.
UN, IMF and World Bank are just the three pillars on which the neo-colonial US-empire is
built.
Most of the world would wish to be liberated from you Gringos,but you don't even realize
what you're wishing for, because you've never looked beyond your home-town, next month's pay
check or thought about what happened longer than a week ago.
"Could we just finally leave the UN now? Or are we waiting for them to finally like
us?"
Yes! Please! Leave! Go with god, but go!
I think it's long over due to move the UN out of New York to any-place-is-better. To be
blackmailed by its xenofobic USA-host, is just unacceptably lethal to a plurinational
institution like the UN.
Maybe the Crimea Peninsula would be a rather suitable place: it's more central for most of
the rest of the world and Russia is a much more respectful and hospitable host.
To be rid of the two most murderous rogue states of the UN, would make life so much easier
for the rest of the world. Without the USA and Israel, the UN would be able to advance with
leaps on a laundry list of bogged down global problems.
I'm quite sure that within a few years of voluntary isolation, the USA and Israel would
come back, begging to be atmitted again to the UN. But of course, the USA would not get back
its veto right in the Security Counsil anymore.
While its populist to shit post the UN, many here are smarter than that. Likely you
appreciate this may be the first signs of the great pivot East. Putin & Xi Jingping will
be crunching their popcorn with interest at this, if not cackling down the phone to each
other. US may well save on its UN subscriptions if this course is pursued, the end result
will be UN HQ will move, not to Switzerland, but to Bejing and with it American isolationism
in a way thats not been experienced since the great depression. More than anything else, the
US needs foreign trade, and that calls for engagement.
The disturbing part is why choose now to recognise Jerusalem? What exactly has Israel done
for the US? Dance on some rooftops while WTC came down? Caused havoc to most of her
neighbors? Schemed and conived to set one neighbor against another.
The Don knew this would sit badly abroad, possibly it's linked with some push back against
Putin in Syria, and to tell Iraq how pissed he is they rained on the Kurdish State parade.
Likely it includes some MIC trade off to pull CiA dogs off his back??? IDK - but it will
forment more dissent in Middle East, and since that's where much of the world's oil & gas
still comes from, we'll all feel the hit.
It seems an action more guided by the Generals? and whilst US does have a formidable
military to add leverage to decisions, it's military infrastructure was built in the cold
war. Much of it in need of replacement:
Stop overthinking. This is nothing more than a campaign funding promise to Sheldon Adelson
and his conservative Isreali-American Council (note which name appears first). $50+ million
to his campaign, $5 million to inauguration.
Some even think the Las Vegas shooting (Adelson owns Las Vegas) was a not so subtle signal
to Trump to get on with it or more events like it would happen.
Canada's entire economic system is so incredibly connected to the USA that it is to a
great extent dependent on a happy and prosperous USA. The last thing Canada needs right now
(since the country already has an embarrassing buffoon as a leader) is to upset the US.
To abstain was their only option, especially since it was known that it would make no
difference in the vote. So it was the wise choice. It had little to do with dumbass
Trudeau.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
"... 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.
"... 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.
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
Legendary CIA spy and convicted Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.
